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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context on top: the result is an ordered array, and the awareness parameter can reshape the sequence for the buyer's state. No contradiction with 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 short, but its first sentence exactly duplicates the tool title. The second sentence carries valuable information, but the redundant opener wastes a sentence and slightly dulls the front-loading effect.

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 read-only, two-parameter tool with an output schema and annotations, the description covers the core purpose, the main selector parameter, and the optional reshaping behavior. It does not discuss alternative tool selection, but that gap is relatively minor for actually invoking this 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% and the description essentially paraphrases the schema (pitch slug, awareness state). It adds no new constraints, formats, or usage details beyond what the input schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('serves') and a specific resource ('a named pitch as an ordered InsightCard[]'), making the tool's function immediately clear. It also differentiates itself from the many get_* siblings by naming the unique output type and the 'cross-site insight-player contract'.

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 explains how the tool works (?pitch selects, ?awareness reshapes) but gives no guidance on when to use it instead of alternative get_* tools, nor any conditions or exclusions. An agent is left to infer that this is the right tool whenever InsightCards are needed.

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