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

The annotations already flag destructive/world-changing behavior, but the description goes much further: provider calls are made, leads are inserted, budgets and quotas are consumed, OFF and DRAFT plays still run while PAUSED does not, and it enumerates skipped reasons. This fully discloses the operational impact beyond the annotations. No contradiction with annotations found.

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 dense but orderly: a one-line summary, force behavior, real-world effects, call condition, alternative, and return shape. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important safety and differentiation information is front-loaded.

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 destructive tool with no output schema, the description is essentially complete: it states side effects, exceptional skipped reasons, return funnel fields, and the alternative for preview-only behavior. An agent has enough context to decide whether to call it and what to expect.

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 parameter semantics baseline is 3. The schema already documents the lane enum (key) and specifies that playId comes from gtm_list_plays. The description adds general run semantics but no additional per-parameter detail beyond what the schema provides.

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 is precise: 'run ONE lane immediately' through the production tick code, with explicit force semantics. It clearly names the resource (a lane) and the action (run), and distinguishes itself from gtm_preview_source, so an agent can identify this tool without ambiguity.

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?

The description gives an explicit call condition: 'Only call it when the human asked for a run in this conversation.' It also names the alternative for non-spending lookups: 'to look without spending, use gtm_preview_source.' This is clear when/when-not guidance with no inference required.

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