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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds only the fact that the data is 'static', which usefully signals stability/cacheability, but it says nothing about size, output shape, or the cost implied by detail=full.

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?

One front-loaded sentence that defines the resource, followed by a concrete example call. The enumeration is long but every item corresponds to a real enum value, so it earns its space; a tighter grouping could still trim a few words.

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 a full output schema, 100% parameter coverage, and complete annotations, the description only needs to establish what the tool is and why it exists. It does that; the only residual gap is not explaining what detail=full costs or what the lists look like structurally.

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 100% and both parameters are enums with per-value documentation, so the schema carries the semantics. The description contributes a single example invocation ({"method":"sales_filters"}) but adds no meaning beyond the enum descriptions.

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 names the resource precisely and enumerates the exact list families returned (CSI channels/languages, explore category ids, LIVE gift coin prices, ad regions, creative markets, sales filters). It implicitly separates itself from siblings by framing everything as 'static lists other tools need' rather than queries, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

'Static lists other tools need' plus the listed mappings (e.g. csi_channels feeding demand_find_topics, explore_categories feeding video_feed method=explore) tell an agent when to reach for this tool: to resolve ids/codes before calling another tool. It lacks an explicit statement of when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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