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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clarifies that this is an advisory tool that returns a strategy creation method rather than executing actions, and it guarantees inclusion of Japanese legal compliance and measurement implementation. It does not describe the response structure or any limitations, preventing a 5.

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 purpose, then moves to trigger phrases, then output guarantees, then input mapping, which is a logical flow. It is long but each sentence carries distinct information, and there is minimal repetition.

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 three optional parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains what inputs to supply and what the response will contain: seven principles, channel-specific patterns, AEO patterns, plus legal and measurement sections. The main gap is the unclear relationship to sibling tools b612_patterns and b612_principles, along with the lack of a sample output structure.

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?

Since schema description coverage is 100%, the schema already documents goal, channel, and product. The description restates the meanings (goal as target, product as what/whom/price, channel as priority medium) but adds no new format, examples, or enum details beyond the schema. The baseline of 3 applies here.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it returns a strategy for spreading and selling created assets via SNS, note, and AEO, and names the exact channels. It is scoped to the 'Grow' layer and calls out unique inclusions (legal guard, measurement) that separate it from design or note-writing siblings. However, it never explicitly contrasts itself with b612_patterns or b612_principles, whose names overlap with the output components it promises.

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 explicitly lists concrete trigger phrases such as 'want to attract customers', 'SNS strategy', 'how to sell', 'AEO', and 'want note to be read', giving clear context for when to use the tool. It also tells the caller what inputs to pass (product, goal, channel). It does not, however, name alternatives or state when not to use it, leaving some sibling routing to inference.

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