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

Annotations already establish this is a read-only, non-open-world operation. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: it is restricted to APPROVED agencies, and it explains the downstream credit-attribution rule (registrations and later ShearQuery signups are credited to the agency). That is genuine context the annotations do not carry.

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?

It is essentially one dense sentence with the key qualifier 'For an APPROVED agency' front-loaded. Every clause earns its place by describing a distinct output or attribution behavior, though the sentence is long and could be split for readability.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly carries the burden of explaining return contents: the link, the captions, and the list of registrants, plus the credit rule. An agent knows what to expect. The main omission is a clearer statement of the approval requirement's source or the read-only nature of the call.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document and the baseline is 4. The description instead characterizes the return payload (link, captions, registrant list), which is the relevant information for a no-arg tool.

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 concretely states what the tool returns: the agency's own training link, ready-to-post captions, and the list of registrations credited to it. It's clear on the resource and scope, though the verb 'promote' in the name/title slightly overstates an action when the tool is actually a read that delivers assets. No sibling is named because no near-equivalent exists.

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 'For an APPROVED agency' clause gives one useful precondition, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of when it should not be called, and no alternative tool pointed to. Usage context is implied rather than stated.

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