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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the burden is lighter; the description adds return-shape and grouping detail plus the default-false shortlist behavior. It does not cover pagination, result counts, or what 'evidence' means (left to get_opportunity_evidence), which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Usage guidance is front-loaded before the return description and the negative cases are collected at the end, which is good structure. The sentences are long and somewhat repetitive about 'their own channel or account', which costs a point but nothing is truly extraneous.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by describing the returned idea record and its grouping, so an agent knows what it will get. Combined with explicit exclusions and a single optional parameter, nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is 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 single parameter include_saved is fully documented in the schema (100% coverage) including its default, and the description does not restate or extend it. With schema coverage this high, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 resource (current video/Reel ideas for the creator's own channel) and enumerates the returned fields: working title, premise, angle, hook, channel fit, why now, evidence strength, grouped as timely/evergreen/early-watch. It clearly separates itself from siblings like rate_video_opportunity and start_video_opportunity, which act on an existing idea rather than generating a list.

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?

Explicit routing is given in both directions: use it for 'what to make next', idea lists, content plans, or hook/title requests with no topic; do not use it when a topic is already supplied, for generic brainstorming, scripts from scratch, competitor channels, or analytics. It also names the preference ('prefer this over inventing ideas'), leaving little to inference.

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