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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: the `{ ok: false, error }` failure shape and an explicit instruction not to blindly retry, which matters for an irreversible bulk-delete. It does not state irreversibility or whether a confirmation step is expected.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by the optional scoping and then error handling — no wasted text. The error-handling sentence is slightly procedural but earns its place given the destructive nature.

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, the description usefully discloses the failure return shape, and it covers the scoping parameter and error-recovery path. The main omission for a destructive, no-confirmation tool is any statement about reversibility or what a successful response looks like.

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 67%, and the two analytics parameters (context, llm_model) are fully documented in the schema. The description supplies the missing semantics for `advertiserProjectId` by explaining it narrows the clear to one project, though it does not say where the ID comes from or its format.

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 ('Clear all items from the user's shopping cart') plus a narrower optional scope ('clear only items for a specific advertiser project'). This makes it unambiguous against siblings like add-to-cart, update-cart, and get-cart without needing to name them.

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?

Gives a clear conditional for the optional scoped variant and adds a runtime guideline (explain the error, ask the user to resolve, don't retry blindly). It stops short of naming alternatives such as update-cart for partial item changes, so it is clear context rather than full when/when-not guidance.

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