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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint true, and the description adds 'No authentication required,' a useful behavioral detail not captured by annotations. It also describes the order model context, but without more depth on potential side effects (though none apply here).

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?

The description is efficient: a single structured sentence listing key contents, followed by two short sentences on authentication and usage. It is front-loaded with the main verb and resource, and every clause adds value without redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no inputs) and the presence of an output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers what data is returned, the order model, onboarding steps, and when to call it, leaving no gaps for the agent.

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 has zero parameters, so the schema provides no parameter descriptions. Per the rubric, 0 params earns a baseline of 4. The description focuses on output details rather than parameters, which is appropriate.

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's purpose: 'Returns the UGC Pocket service descriptor' and enumerates specific contents like creator categories, platforms, currency, budgets, order model, and onboarding steps. It distinguishes from sibling tools by framing itself as the first call for enum values and account setup.

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?

Provides explicit usage guidance: 'Call this first to learn valid enum values, or whenever you need to tell a user how to connect UGC Pocket to their agent.' This tells the agent exactly when to invoke it, and implicitly contrasts with sibling campaign-related tools.

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