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

With no annotations, the description carries the load and does disclose the return content (image + open ad link), the endpoint path, and the agent-only visibility constraint. It does not explicitly state that the call is side-effect free, nor any auth/permission or pagination behavior, which is the remaining gap for an unannotated tool.

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 resource definition, then the exclusion, then operational notes; every clause carries signal. The '(steps 1, 16, 17)' reference is slightly opaque without context but is compact.

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, and the description compensates by describing the returned card content, the endpoint, and the usage boundary. Only read-only/auth semantics are left unstated, which is a minor gap for a fetch 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the single optional notification_message parameter is fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds nothing about it, but does not need to; 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 resource (marketing/promo advertisement cards for guest invites) with the payload shape (image + open ad link) and the exact endpoint. An agent can distinguish it from fetch_notifications and the other fetch_* siblings without inspecting any schema.

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?

Explicit exclusion list ('Do NOT use for invite history, sent invite links, or visitor list') plus a named alternative (fetch_notifications) and an extra audience constraint ('Agent-only; hidden from chat suggestion buttons'). Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are stated.

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