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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior. It explains the meaning of status values (ok, low, request, missing) and consent values (yes, requested, no). It defines the derived field ready_to_print and the action rule for sending to ISAMI. This is comprehensive and exceeds typical transparency.

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 a single, dense sentence that packs all necessary information without redundancy. While it is long, it efficiently conveys all key details. It is front-loaded with the main action and then provides specifics.

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 no output schema, the description fully documents the return fields and their meanings. It explains the condition for ready_to_print and the correct usage. The tool's purpose and output are completely covered for its scope.

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?

There are no parameters (0 params, 100% schema coverage), so the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to add parameter details. It correctly focuses on output and behavior instead.

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 lists sponsored gi's sponsor placements with specific fields like slot, brand, position, etc. It specifies 'owner-only' restriction, distinguishing it from other tools. The verb 'list' with the specific resource 'sponsored gi's sponsor placements' makes the purpose unambiguous.

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?

The description explicitly states it's owner-only, guiding who should use it. It provides a critical usage guideline: 'ready_to_print is true ONLY when status=ok AND consent=yes — anything else must NOT be sent to ISAMI.' This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use advice, including a warning about trademark misuse.

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