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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, already covering safety. The description goes well beyond this by explaining the structure and semantics of the response, including verdict.reason codes and the actions to take for each, the referral offer's independence and capacity sharing, and polling guidance after starting traffic. This adds substantial behavioral context without contradicting 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 well-structured, front-loaded with the core purpose before diving into field details. Each sentence provides necessary information for interpreting the complex response, and the reason codes are enumerated clearly. It is dense but appropriately so for the tool's complexity.

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 and a single parameter, the description carries the full burden of explaining the response. It covers verdict, offer, referralOffer, current runs, and runs list, including statuses, failure reasons, and post URLs, plus guidance on polling after starting traffic. Nothing an agent needs to call and interpret the tool is missing.

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 only parameter, applicationId, is fully described in the schema as 'Application (game) id, as returned by list_applications' (100% coverage). The description adds no additional meaning or usage context for this parameter, so the baseline of 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 clearly states the tool reads the sandbox traffic state, including verdict, offer, and runs. The verb and resource are explicit, and the title reinforces this. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like get_sandbox_share, but the content makes 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 when to use the tool (to check if an ad campaign can bring players to the sandbox) and references get_bridge_sdk_docs for integration details, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools or state when not to use it. The guidance is more about interpreting the response than selecting the tool.

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