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

With readOnlyHint=false the agent knows this writes, and the description adds valuable non-obvious context: it 'Changes nothing in any ad account', the marks tune advice rules, and it is 'Free'. This clarifies the write's true blast radius beyond what the annotations convey, though it doesn't restate the declared idempotent behavior.

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?

Three short sentences, zero padding, and the core action and its scope ('changes nothing in any ad account') are front-loaded. Every clause earns its place.

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 simple two-parameter, non-destructive, idempotent write with no output schema, the description covers effect, cost, safety scope, and parameter source. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 enum values are fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description still adds meaning beyond the schema by telling the agent where advice_id originates ('from get_advice'), which the schema does not state.

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 uses a specific verb ('Record') plus the exact resource ('whether a piece of today's advice is right') and enumerates the possible values (yes/no/nonsense). It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling get_advice, which only retrieves advice rather than rating it.

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 gives clear workflow context ('Use the id from get_advice'), telling the agent where the required advice_id comes from. It stops short of stating when NOT to mark or how marks interact (e.g., overwriting a prior mark), so it is clear context without explicit exclusions.

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