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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, indicating safe, non-destructive behavior. The description adds that the tool returns structured compliance reports with warnings and source references, and crucially warns about the need for async:true to avoid timeout errors. This additional context about execution requirements enhances transparency beyond what annotations provide.

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 three sentences long, front-loading the core purpose and then providing input/output details and an important execution requirement. Every sentence adds value with no redundant or vague phrasing.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema and full parameter documentation, the description covers the essential aspects: input types, async requirement, output nature (compliance reports with warnings and source references), and target audience. However, it omits potential constraints like rate limits or maximum input sizes for domain lists, which could be relevant for an agent.

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%, but the description adds significant semantic value by stating it accepts domain lists or network identifiers, aligning with the 'domains' and 'networkIds' parameters. It also explicitly requires async:true, which is critical for this tool's execution and not indicated in the schema description for the async parameter.

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 states the tool audits retail media networks for ESG compliance by analyzing ad placements, tracking cookies, and verifying ethical advertising standards. It specifies the output type and target audience (ad_revenue_ops teams). However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling ESG audit tools like 'esg_audit_multi' or 'manufacturing_esg_compliance_mapper', relying on the 'retail media' context for differentiation.

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 mentions the tool is designed for ad_revenue_ops teams and requires async:true to avoid timeouts. It also states it accepts domain lists or network identifiers. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as other ESG compliance tools or audit tools for different domains.

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