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

The description discloses that rules are applied in list order after territories, which is a behavioral trait not visible in the schema. It also notes that 'list is read-only' in the schema, and the description's 'Use action=list first' reinforces safe exploration. The destructiveHint annotation is true, and the description doesn't contradict it; it could add more about the consequences of delete/disable, but the annotation covers the destructive nature.

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 compact and information-dense. It front-loads the core purpose, then gives a quick overview of rule types, and ends with a practical usage tip. Every sentence earns its place; no fluff or repetition of schema details.

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 tool with 9 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description plus the rich schema covers the essential semantics. The description explains the rule model (one trigger, one action, list order) and the schema covers all field details. The only minor gap is that the description doesn't explain what the output of 'list' looks like, but since there's no output schema, a brief note could help. Still, the combination is strong enough for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds a high-level summary of what triggers and actions do, but doesn't add much beyond the schema's own field descriptions. The nested objects (actionFields, triggerFields) are well-documented in the schema, so the description doesn't need to compensate. 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?

The description clearly states what the tool does: it manages rules that change what a visitor sees based on where and when they search. It enumerates the action types (banner, feature, only, hide) and trigger types, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on visitor-facing spotlight rules rather than location CRUD or configuration management.

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 advises using 'action=list first to see what exists', which is a clear usage guideline for a CRUD-like tool. It also explains the rule application order ('applied in list order after territories'), giving the agent context on how rules interact. While it doesn't name specific sibling alternatives, the tool's domain is distinct enough that the guidance is sufficient.

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