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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the output shape (risk tier, platform, matched policy phrases with explanations, next-step checklist) and the explicit limitation that it is heuristic and will not draft appeals or recommend replacement accounts.

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, front-loaded with the action and input, then the return values, then the caveat. Every clause carries information; nothing is restated from the schema or annotations.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so fully (risk tier, platform, phrases plus explanations, checklist). Input handling and the tool's epistemic limits are both stated, so an agent can call it and interpret results without further guessing.

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 coverage is 100% and the param description already covers length and PII scrubbing, so the baseline is 3. The description goes slightly further by constraining what kind of text belongs in the field — suspension/disapproval/policy notices from four named platforms — which helps the agent decide whether a given string is valid input.

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?

Specific verb (paste/analyze notice text) plus resource (Google Ads / AdSense / Merchant Center / Meta policy notices) and a concrete output (HIGH/MED/LOW risk card). No sibling tool is anywhere near this domain, so the distinction is 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?

Names the exact input situations (suspension, disapproval, or policy notice) and enumerates the four platforms, which tells the agent when this applies. It also draws a hard boundary — heuristic only, never suggests replacement accounts or files appeals — but does not name an alternative tool or say when not to use it.

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