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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the shape of the return (fixed USD price, turnaround, link disclosure, stable id) and the fact that the id is the handoff token for quote_placements. It stops short of describing pagination against limit/offset.

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?

Three tight sentences: what it searches, what it returns, and the one filter worth calling out. Zero filler and the primary purpose leads.

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?

For a 13-parameter read with no output schema, the description usefully summarizes the response fields an agent needs to reason about downstream. It is nearly complete, though it omits pagination behavior for limit/offset and the default result ordering.

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 92%, with each parameter (including enums like sort) already documented, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description only restates max_price's budget-filtering role, which the schema already conveys. 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?

States a specific verb and resource (searches buyable media placements) and enumerates the filter axes it operates on: budget, authority, geography, topic and link policy. The scope ('buyable placements') cleanly separates it from get_outlet's single-outlet lookup and from quote_placements' pricing action.

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 implied through the mention that max_price filters the catalogue to a budget and that the returned id is what quote_placements accepts, which gives an agent a sense of the workflow. However, it never states when to reach for get_outlet instead, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.

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