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

Annotations already declare this as a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it discloses latency ('Takes a few seconds') and the downstream workflow it feeds into, which an agent needs for sequencing decisions.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by the latency note and the routing hint. No filler and nothing repeated from the schema or annotations.

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?

For a zero-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, latency, and the next action adequately. It stops short of describing the recommendation payload's structure or any account/eligibility preconditions, which would make it fully self-contained.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so by the calibration baseline this sits at 4. The description does not need to explain inputs; it instead characterizes the generated content (audience, budget, duration), which is a reasonable substitute.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get AI-generated suggestions for which post to boost as a paid ad') plus the shape of the payload (audience, budget, duration). This is clearly distinguishable from sibling write tools like boost_post or get_top_posts.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to the follow-up tool: 'Use boost_post to launch one.' That names the alternative and the relationship, but there is no guidance on when this tool should NOT be used or what prerequisites must exist before calling it.

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