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

Beyond readOnlyHint, the description discloses important behavior: provisional readings are never written to the ad and are not counted in angle results until a person confirms them. It also explains the confirmation workflow and Space scoping, which are meaningful operational details for an agent.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core behavior, followed by a clear user-facing instruction and then scope guidance. Every sentence earns its place, and the parenthetical clarifies rather than bloats.

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 read-only tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description gives enough context about the grouped return categories and the confirmation workflow. It could say more about pagination or exact response shape, but nothing critical is missing for 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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces that business_id selects the business and that space_id overrides the active Space for one call, but adds little syntax or semantic detail beyond the schema.

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?

The description clearly identifies the resource and result: active ads grouped by the angle each argues, including confirmed, provisional, and unreadable readings. It is specific enough for an agent to distinguish this from a plain ad list, though it does not explicitly name a sibling tool or state the verb as directly as it could.

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?

It gives a clear workflow instruction: show readings to the user before confirming any. It also explains Space scoping and points to set_active_space or the space_id override. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this over list_ads or get_ad, but the intended context is clear.

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