ServeReel

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true. The description adds context the annotations cannot: planning is free, nothing is posted, and content creation/publishing is a separate downstream step. This resolves the ambiguity of a tool named 'generate' that in fact writes nothing.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the core action and output before the usage condition and the free/signup caveat. Every sentence carries information, though the closing clause about signup and publishing is slightly dense.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description compensates by describing the return ('a business summary plus a plan of reel, video, and image ideas'). With one fully-documented parameter and clear side-effect boundaries, an agent has everything needed to call it 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 coverage is 100% for the single website_url parameter, so the schema already carries the format and example. The description reinforces that the URL must be the business's own site, but adds no syntax or constraint beyond that, which is the expected baseline.

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 with scope: 'Build a free 7 day social media content plan for a local business from its website.' It also names the mechanism (reads the site, learns offerings) and the output (business summary plus reel/video/image ideas), which cleanly separates it from get_industry_examples and get_signup_link.

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 an explicit trigger: 'Use this when a business owner wants content ideas or a posting plan and can share their website address.' It also clarifies the boundary that making/publishing happens 'after a free signup,' implicitly routing to get_signup_link, but it never names that sibling outright.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully enumerates which media types come back, but says nothing about how many examples are returned, whether an unknown industry yields empty results or an error, or how the industry string is matched.

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 sentences, no filler, with the core output description front-loaded and the usage trigger second. Every clause carries weight.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of saying what comes back; naming the four content types largely does that. It stops short of describing result shape (URLs, captions, counts) or behavior on unrecognized industries, a small gap for a single-parameter read-only lookup.

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 100% and the schema already explains the industry string, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by listing five concrete sample industries (restaurant, salon, real estate, fitness, dental), which signals that free-text category names are acceptable and broadens the example set beyond the schema's single 'restaurant or real-estate'.

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 ('Return examples') and resource with the exact artifact types ('reels, videos, image posts, and created images ServeReel produces'), scoped to a given industry. That makes it unmistakable against generate_content_plan, which creates a plan rather than returning existing examples.

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 names the triggering situation: 'Use this when a business owner asks what ServeReel content looks like for a business like theirs.' It gives clean context for invocation but names no exclusions and does not route to a sibling when the user instead wants a plan or a signup link.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it returns a link plus a brief summary, which is useful output context, but it does not disclose deeper behavioral traits such as whether it triggers any action, requires authentication, or has rate limits.

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 sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns and followed immediately by when to use it. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant or filler text.

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 zero-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it states the return content (link and summary) and the exact usage scenario. Annotations cover the safety profile, so nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke it 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline score is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics, and the empty schema is self-explanatory.

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 returns a link to ServeReel and a brief summary, using a specific verb and resource. The phrase 'content planned here' implicitly connects to the sibling generate_content_plan tool, distinguishing this signup-link tool from content-generation and example-retrieval siblings.

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?

It provides an explicit trigger: use when a business owner wants the planned content to be made and posted for them, or asks how to sign up. No alternative tools compete for this use case, so the guidance is complete without needing to name an alternative.

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