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

Beyond the readOnly/destructive annotations, it discloses the sensitiveGate behavior (currentValue withheld until acknowledge_sensitive:true is sent), the meaning of error sources ('export = Koongo-side validation... adapter / api_error = channel-side reject'), and raw versus human-readable field semantics. This is substantial behavioral context with no contradiction to annotations.

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 long but dense and front-loaded: the first sentence states purpose and the full output shape, then each clause explains a distinct aspect such as human vs raw codes, error source/severity, sensitive gate, and ID provenance. There is no filler or repetition of annotations.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description enumerates the report shape and the semantics of its key fields, including the nested errors array and sensitiveGate. It covers ID sourcing, project_id error handling, and the two-step sensitive-data retrieval, so an agent has enough context to invoke 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 coverage is 75%, and the description compensates fully: item_id/ad_id origins are pinned to source calls, project_id's optionality and fallback are explained (project_id has no schema description), and acknowledge_sensitive is tied to the sensitiveGate flow. It adds clear meaning beyond the input schema.

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 action and resource: 'Get the full error report of ONE ad listing item,' with the purpose 'why the product passed/failed.' The scope is clear enough to distinguish from ad-level reports, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools like get_ad_report or get_ad_item_history.

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?

Provides explicit usage context: per-item error reports, ID provenance ('item_id is the itemId from list_ad_items', 'ad_id is the integrationId from list_ads'), and a fallback ('project_id is OPTIONAL (project_id_required otherwise — then call list_projects)'). It also explains the two-call sensitive-data flow. It does not explicitly contrast with aggregate or history siblings, but the context is clear.

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