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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: 'Free and unmetered, and reviewed by a person before it is shown to anyone.' This clarifies costs, rate limits, and human review. No contradiction with annotations is present. However, it does not disclose aspects like response time or what happens if the business is missing.

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 a concise two-sentence structure, front-loaded with the primary action. Every sentence adds value: the first states what the tool does, the second adds important behavioral traits. No fluff or redundancy.

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 the tool has 10 parameters and no output schema, the description is too brief. It does not explain the return value, the human review timeline, required prerequisites (e.g., business must exist), or how to handle the `kind` enum. The description lacks sufficient context for an agent to use the tool confidently.

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?

With schema description coverage at 50% (5 of 10 parameters described), the description does not compensate. It only mentions needing a business but does not clarify which parameter (`submission_id` or `external_ref`) to use, nor does it explain the meaning of `kind` values or other parameters. The description adds minimal parameter guidance.

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 the verb 'post' and the resource 'promotion, special, event or ad' attached to a previously submitted business. It distinguishes this from siblings like `num_submit_business` by specifying the requirement of an existing business, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 implies the tool is for adding promotions to already-submitted businesses ('against a business you already submitted'), but it does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives (e.g., `num_submit_business` for new businesses). No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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