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

Goes well beyond the annotations (which only flag non-read-only, non-idempotent, closed-world) by disclosing that every call is a fresh AI generation, consumes one daily Ad Spy lookup plus an extra lookup for a first-time ad analysis, and requires specific plan and auth scopes. This is exactly the cost/entitlement context an agent needs before invoking.

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?

Front-loaded with the operation and output shape, then prerequisites and cost. Dense but nearly every clause carries information; the second sentence is long but justified by the billing and entitlement caveats.

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?

With no output schema, the description still enumerates the returned script structure (hook, shot/text beats, soft CTA, audio, caption) plus platform targets, cost model, and plan/auth requirements. An agent has everything needed to decide and call correctly.

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%, so all three parameters are already documented in-schema, including the creative_id vs Meta ad_id distinction and the app_id placeholder behavior. The description adds the framing that only format is borrowed, but no additional per-parameter syntax or format detail, so baseline 3 applies.

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 artifact: adapting a competitor ad's FORMAT into an organic TikTok/Reels script with named components (hook, beats, soft CTA, audio, caption). The parenthetical '(not its claims or brand)' sharply distinguishes it from ad-copying or analysis siblings like sonar_ad_spy_ad_analysis.

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?

Clearly frames the use case (turn a proven ad format into a filmable organic script) and adds preconditions: Indie/Agency plan or trial, and an authorized Sonar account or write-scope API key. It does not name a specific alternative tool or say when NOT to use it versus sonar_ad_spy_analyze_ad.

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