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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds value by revealing it accesses a 'booking ledger' and distinguishes 'REAL remaining capacity' from published rates. However, it never explicitly states the operation is read-only, nor does it mention authentication, rate limits, or response behavior—gaps that matter for a query tool with zero annotation support.

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 sentences, no fluff. The first sentence delivers the core purpose and scope, the second gives a clear directive, and the third defines the two price fields precisely. All content earns its place and the description is front-loaded.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain what the tool returns. It covers the main output aspects (formats, list CPM, floor CPM, remaining capacity) but leaves the 'remaining capacity' return unspecified in terms of field names or units. For a tool with only two optional parameters, this is adequate but not fully complete.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning to the sport or format parameters beyond what the schema already provides; its added details (list_cpm_usd vs floor_cpm_usd) concern output semantics, not parameter semantics. Therefore the score matches the baseline.

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 ('Query') and resource ('live sports advertising inventory'), and names the exact outputs: formats, list CPM, biddable hard floor, and remaining capacity. It differentiates itself from siblings like create_ad_order or submit_programmatic_bid by framing itself as the starting point for discovering availability, making its role 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?

It explicitly says 'Start here to see what is actually available', which establishes a clear primary use case and implies using it before bidding or creating orders. However, it does not name alternative sibling tools (e.g., list_open_tenders, estimate_ad_cost) or provide explicit when-not-to-use conditions, so it falls short of a 5.

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