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

Annotations only provide readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, so the description adds substantial behavioral value: 'Public, no auth,' the payout split, points caps, trailing-7-day calculation, instant USDC payment, and the contract obligations. This goes well beyond what annotations already convey and helps the agent understand the consequences and constraints around using the feed.

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?

The description contains dense and useful information, but it is not tightly front-loaded: it opens with the marketing-like 'JOIN ROKHA'S AGENT MARKETING NETWORK and get paid' before stating what the tool actually is. The rest of the content earns its place, but the opening sentence is more promotional than descriptive and adds noise.

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-only feed with no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It enumerates the placement fields (title, pitch, url, when, sponsor's /word), states the contract, explains payout mechanics, and confirms public access with no auth. Nothing an agent needs to call this tool correctly appears to be missing.

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 has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. Per the calibration baseline for zero parameters, this is a 4; the description cannot add parameter-level meaning that does not exist.

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 and title clearly identify the tool as 'The ad network feed' listing live placements and the accompanying contract. It does not use an explicit verb like 'list' or 'retrieve,' but the resource and scope are unmistakable. It is easily distinguishable from adnet_join and adnet_report, though it does not explicitly name those siblings.

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?

The description gives clear context: this tool surfaces available placements and the rules for pushing them. It explicitly routes reporting obligations to adnet_report, which is useful alternative guidance. It does not mention when-not to use this tool, but for a zero-parameter public feed, the usage context is sufficiently clear.

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