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

Description contradicts annotations: it describes generating new content (a write operation) but annotations include readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. This is a serious inconsistency that misleads the agent about the tool's side effects.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no filler. Every sentence adds value: supported channels, generated content details, A/B variations, plan requirement. Efficient and well-structured.

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 the tool complexity (6 parameters, output schema present), the description covers supported channels and generated content, and mentions A/B tests and plan requirement. However, the contradiction with annotations and lack of clarity on idempotency reduce completeness. The output schema likely explains return values, so no deduction there.

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 schema already documents each parameter with descriptions and enums. The description adds general context about what is generated but does not add specific parameter-level meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states it generates marketing content for specific channels, lists supported channels (Google Ads, Facebook, etc.), and specifies output components (headline, body, CTA, SMS version). This distinguishes it from the sibling 'marketing.strategy' which likely focuses on strategy rather than content generation.

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?

Description explicitly says when to use (generate content for a channel) and mentions the Pro plan requirement. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the channel list and output description make the usage context clear. A brief exclusion of alternative tools would elevate it to a 5.

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