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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description goes beyond this by revealing that the tool queries a curated knowledge base of practitioners, books, and research and returns summarised, cited insights. This adds meaningful behavioral context without contradicting the annotations.

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 a single sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource, then briefly enumerates the covered topics and the output type. Every phrase earns its place.

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 read-only, single-query tool with fully described parameters and no output schema, the description conveys the source domain and return shape (summarised, cited insights). Rate-limit details are already captured in the email parameter schema, so the description does not need to repeat them.

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 schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description adds marginal value by listing example topic areas for the query parameter, but it does not provide any additional parameter-specific semantics.

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 identifies a specific action ('Ask') and resource ('Ergora Paid ads'), with explicit topic areas: Meta/Google/TikTok, creative, media buying, and attribution. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling specialists like ergora_marketing, but the topic list is enough to differentiate it in practice.

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?

Usage is implied: the agent should ask this tool when the question concerns paid ads platforms or related topics. However, there is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or recommendation of alternative sibling tools, leaving the decision to inference.

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