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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds that these are 'saved' and 'observational', which frames the data type but does not disclose pagination, ordering, or result limits for a listing tool.

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?

Two tightly written sentences with the purpose front-loaded and the alternative-routing sentence second. No filler 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, for a listing tool with cursor/limit parameters the absence of any pagination guidance leaves a meaningful gap.

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 0% across 3 parameters (brandId, limit, cursor), and the description does not compensate: it never mentions pagination, cursor semantics, or result limits. Only a weak hint of brandId scoping ('for the selected brand') is conveyed, leaving limit/cursor undocumented in both schema and description.

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 (List) and resource (observational content experiments) scoped to the selected brand, clearly distinguishable from create_experiment and get_experiment. The phrase 'observational content experiments' is a bit unusual but enough for an agent to identify what is returned.

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 routes the agent to an alternative: 'Use get_experiment for measured results and coverage.' This gives a clear condition for choosing the sibling. It lacks any when-not-to-use guidance or prerequisites, but the core contextual routing is present.

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