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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds further context by stating 'Public — no auth required' and clarifying it wraps a public endpoint. This goes beyond the annotation hints and helps the agent understand access requirements and the tool's passthrough nature.

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 compact (~60 words) and front-loaded. The first sentence identifies the endpoint and its contents, the second provides usage scenarios, and the third handles authentication. Every sentence contributes new information with no redundancy or filler.

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 zero-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what the manifest is, what it includes, when to use it, and authentication. It does not need to describe return values as the listed contents inform the agent of the response shape, and the provided annotations cover the operational safety profile.

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, and schema description coverage is 100%. Per the rubric, baseline is 4 when there are no params. The description appropriately avoids inventing parameter details, and no compensation is needed since there is nothing to document.

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 wraps the public `/embed/network-manifest.json` and defines it as the platform-level DSP/SSP onboarding bundle. It lists the contained elements (creative formats, payout rails, attribution URLs, integration patterns) and distinguishes it from sibling `get_embedder_manifest` by specifying 'platform-wide' and 'network manifest'.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use when an agent is evaluating whether to wire storyflo into its surface, or when a DSP partner needs the canonical integration shape.' It does not explicitly name when-not-to-use or alternative tools, but the context is clear enough to guide selection.

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