Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one useful behavioral fact — results are scoped to the linked Market Brew account — but omits pagination behavior (offset/pageSize exist in the schema) and return shape. Adequate given annotations, with real gaps.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences with the trigger condition front-loaded and zero filler. It is efficiently structured, though the brevity edges toward under-specification rather than optimal density.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description should describe what a listing returns and how pagination works, but it does neither. Annotations and the 100%-covered schema carry the safety and parameter burden, leaving the description minimally sufficient for a list tool with a nested filter object.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the query object already enumerates websiteId, serverHost, title, status, sortBy, sortDir, offset, and pageSize. The description adds no syntax, defaults, or filter semantics beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a clear verb and resource ("list Content Boosters"), but it largely restates the tool name and title rather than adding specificity. It does not distinguish this listing tool from near-siblings like get_content_booster, list_content_booster_assets, or count_content_boosters. The only added detail is the account-scoping note in the second sentence.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

"Use this when the user asks to list Content Boosters" gives an implied trigger condition but no alternatives or exclusions. It never tells the agent when to prefer count_content_boosters, get_content_booster, or list_content_booster_assets instead. Guidance is minimal but present.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.