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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful negative disclosure that no price is returned and that quotes come from submit_campaign_brief, but gives no return-format or pagination detail.

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?

Front-loads the purpose ('full detail for one paid media product') and then lists the returned facets in a single efficient sentence, closing with the pricing caveat. No wasted sentences.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the burden of describing returns, and it does so by enumerating the detail categories and capabilities. For a single-parameter read-only tool, the coverage is nearly complete; only return format specifics are absent.

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?

Only one parameter with 100% schema description coverage; the schema already defines slug and points to list_channels. The description adds no syntax, format, or validation meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('full detail for one paid media product') and enumerates the content returned (what it is, placements, formats, targeting, caveats, capabilities). It contrasts implicitly with the plural list_channels via 'one product', but does not name a sibling outright.

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?

Implies usage by noting caveats a buyer should know 'before submitting a brief' and explicitly routes pricing to submit_campaign_brief ('gets a quote'). However it never states when to call get_channel versus list_channels or get_placement, so routing guidance is partial.

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