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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations: the weekly scoping, the 'ranked' nature, and the fact that drafts may already exist.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The core subject and scope are front-loaded, followed by the payload contents and data sources. Every clause adds information.

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 one-optional-parameter read-only tool with an output schema, the description is nearly complete: it explains what is returned, the time window, and the data sources. It only lacks explicit sibling routing guidance, which is already scored under usage guidelines.

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% for the single optional limit parameter, so the schema fully documents it. The description adds no parameter-specific detail, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries the burden adequately.

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 and resource: 'Get this week's ranked marketing opportunities.' It also enumerates the payload contents (market events, why it matters, a ready-to-run prompt, drafts), which clearly differentiates it from siblings like get_trending_topics or get_competitive_insights.

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 implies when to use it by stating it is 'built from trending topics and competitive alerts,' so an agent can infer it is an aggregate rather than a raw feed. However, it never explicitly names alternatives or states when not to use it, leaving routing partially to inference.

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