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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavior beyond that: admin-only restriction, empty options meaning skip the item, inclusion of already-rendered images for cache reuse, and status limited to live/draft in catalog mode. No contradiction with annotations.

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 is compact and front-loaded, opening with the admin-only and mode distinction before moving to per-parameter guidance. Every sentence adds useful information, and the Args section is scannable.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity, five optional parameters, and existing output schema, the description covers the key operational context: access control, item vs. catalog modes, parameter semantics, cache reuse, and skip behavior. Nothing essential is missing for correct selection and invocation.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden, and it documents all five parameters meaningfully. It explains content_id's expected gc:{id} or rd:{uuid} formats, labels section/language/format as catalog filters, restricts status to live or draft, and adds the 'empty options means skip' behavior.

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 the tool serves live formats for one inbox item or the catalog, clearly identifying its resource and scope. It distinguishes two modes (item vs. catalog), which helps differentiate its purpose, though it does not name a specific sibling alternative or use an explicit verb like 'get' or '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?

It gives actionable usage context: admin-only access, passing content_id from marketing_inbox for a specific item, and using catalog filters without content_id. It conveys when to use each mode but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like marketing_render or marketing_inbox, so no exclusions or alternatives are named.

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