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

With no annotations, the description carries the full safety burden and does so: 'Reads only; nothing is launched and no money moves' explicitly rules out side effects and spend, and it discloses the empty-state contract status=no_evidence. It stops short of describing what happens with missing evidence beyond that status or any account/permission implications.

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?

Compact at roughly three sentences with the core output and the read-only guarantee front-loaded. Slightly run-on phrasing ('three things to film, each citing a count...') costs a little readability.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must characterize returns — it names the plan components, the spend/reach figures, and the no_evidence status, which is enough to call and interpret the tool. Only the guide-style sibling relationship and account_mode consequences remain unaddressed.

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 75%, so most parameter meaning is already structured. The description adds that spend is derived from a lead target, but says nothing about country or account_mode behavior beyond what the enum and schema descriptions already provide.

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 output: an ad plan built from the agent's scans, containing three filmable concepts with cited lead counts plus spend/reach for a lead target. This is clearly distinguishable from the scan-management siblings, though the framing is narrative rather than a crisp verb+resource statement.

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?

Usage is only implied — an agent infers it should call this when it wants ad recommendations for a business. No explicit when-to-use/when-not, and the closely named sibling get_ad_guide is never referenced or differentiated.

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