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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It never says whether this creates opportunities (write), whether it is asynchronous (the existence of get_job_status suggests it may be), what permissions are required, or whether the expansion is limited/de-duplicated against existing opportunities.

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?

A single tight sentence with the core action front-loaded and zero waste. However, its brevity is under-specification rather than efficiency, given five parameters with thin documentation.

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?

Five parameters, 20% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema; the description would need to explain the optional-seed behavior, what the four tuning parameters do, and whether the call is sync or job-based. None of that is present.

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 coverage is 20% — only product_id is documented. The description says 'selected seeds' but seed_ids is optional, so the critical behavior when it is omitted is undefined, and limit_per_seed, lookback_hours, and country_code are entirely undocumented in both schema and 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?

States a specific verb+resource pair: expand seeds into content opportunities, and places it as 'level 2 of the pipeline', which separates it from list_seeds and generate_content. It stops short of naming the sibling it should be used after, but an agent can tell what it does.

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 'level 2 of the pipeline' hint implies this runs after seed selection and before content generation, giving implied ordering. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no mention of how to obtain seed_ids, and no alternative named.

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