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

Despite annotations only flagging readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, the description discloses the async human-built workflow, ~24-hour delivery to the portal, plan-dependent billing behavior, and the required X-Mako-Key header. This is exactly the behavioral context beyond structured fields that the dimension rewards.

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?

Five tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then plan behavior, async expectations, polling path, and auth. Every sentence conveys actionable information with no filler.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers billing, async timing, follow-up tools, and authentication, so an agent has everything needed to invoke and track it correctly. Annotations and schema gaps are fully compensated.

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 63% with 8 parameters, so the schema carries much of the load. The description clarifies the single-competitor constraint and goal context but adds no per-parameter syntax or format detail beyond the schema; 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Order a competitor Meta ads report') with a scope constraint ('for one competitor'). An agent can distinguish this immediately from siblings like create_order or list_deliverables.

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?

Explicitly describes when the tool spends an allowance versus returns a Stripe checkout link (Dominator/Agency/May vs Snapshot), and names the follow-up tools (get_status, then list_deliverables). Nothing about selection or sequencing is left to inference.

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