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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose whether the tool has side effects, permissions required, or what to do with the returned URL. There is a potential contradiction: description mentions a provider parameter, but the schema does not have a provider property, only an 'input' object with no documented fields.

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 concise sentences, no fluff. Could be slightly improved by adding structure like separating purpose from usage condition, but overall efficient.

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?

Lacks context for the authorization flow: no mention of callback, state, or collaboration with other tools. Without output schema or annotations, the description leaves significant gaps for an agent to use 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 description coverage is 75%, but the description adds meaning by mentioning provider values (gam/adsense) not present in the schema. However, it fails to clarify how to actually set the provider since the 'input' object is undocumented, leaving ambiguity.

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?

Clearly states the tool returns an authorization URL for GAM or AdSense, with a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools that also deal with authorization or onboarding.

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?

States that the input requires provider set to gam or adsense, giving a usage condition. However, no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like start_sulvo_revenue_onboarding or verify_sulvo_placement_installation.

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