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

Annotations only declare it as a safe read; the description goes well beyond by disclosing the already_promoted split with diagnosis/recommended_action, the stock_runway creation guardrail, program labeling (SD has no search-term report), and the 3-day attribution lag with end_date override. This is substantial operational context an agent could not infer.

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?

Dense multi-clause sentences, but front-loaded with purpose and every clause carries a real caveat (already_promoted handling, stock_runway, attribution window). Slightly heavy but no filler.

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, yet the description proactively describes the return shape (program label, already_promoted with diagnosis, stock_runway) plus the default date window. For a 14-param read-only analytical tool this fully equips correct invocation.

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 71% and most parameters are already documented there. The description adds meaning to target_acos (conversions 'at or near' it) and end_date (override for reporting vs default 3-day-back window), but leaves limit/offset/start_date/period_days semantics to the schema. Baseline 3 fits.

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 ('find converting search terms eligible for promotion to manual campaigns') and scope ('SP + SB search terms'). Clearly separates it from siblings like ppc_search_terms, ppc_negation_candidates, and keyword_finder by framing the harvest/promotion intent.

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?

Gives clear when-to-use context (terms with conversions at/around target ACoS) and critical exclusions ('never harvest a duplicate', 'do not create new campaigns for ASINs under creation_runway_days of supply'). Does not name a specific sibling alternative, so not a 5.

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