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.