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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond them: the precedence rule ("These rules override your defaults") and the exact content categories returned. It does not discuss result size, pagination, or failure modes, but the presence of an output schema lowers the burden.

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 dense sentences with the imperative call-to-action front-loaded, followed by payload contents and the precedence caveat. No filler, no restatement of the title, and every clause carries information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value structure need not be explained, and the description still summarizes the payload categories. For a zero-required-parameter read-only context tool, an agent has everything it needs to decide to call it first and how to invoke it.

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 single optional 'skills' parameter is fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions skills as part of the returned payload but adds no syntax, naming, or selection semantics beyond what the schema already states.

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 names a specific retrieval action and enumerates its payload precisely: owner's standing rules (conversion events, data sources, targets, currency, scope), knowledge-base sheets/docs, skills, and connected ad accounts. This is clearly distinguishable from the sibling action tools (apply_change, propose_change, undo_change), which mutate rather than fetch context.

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?

"Call FIRST before analyzing or changing this company" gives an explicit ordering rule and a clear trigger condition, which is strong guidance for a context-priming tool. It stops short of stating exclusions or an alternative fetch path, but for this tool none is apparent.

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