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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context: it returns best-matching answers plus a topic, escalates when nothing matches, and is grounded in real support history plus verified policy. This goes beyond the 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 moderately long but each sentence earns its place: the action/voice, the scope list, the output/fallback behavior, and usage examples. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, and while the topic list is dense, it is necessary for clarifying coverage.

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 a simple one-parameter schema and no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does, what it returns (answer(s) + topic), the escalate behavior, and the supported question types. It is complete for an agent to select and invoke this tool.

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 schema already fully describes the 'question' parameter with 100% coverage. The description reinforces it with concrete example questions, illustrating what the input should look like in practice. This adds useful guidance beyond the schema's generic description.

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 clearly states the tool answers customer support/FAQ questions in Vivid Ads' voice and lists a comprehensive set of covered topics. It uses a specific verb ('Answer') and resource, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like vivid_order_status or vivid_delivery_estimate, which could overlap with some topics.

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 explicit examples ('how long does it take?', 'what file format do you need?') and explains the escalate:true fallback when no match is found. However, it does not name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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