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

Annotations already declare this is a write (readOnlyHint=false), non-idempotent, non-destructive, open-world operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuine workflow constraint — that this only enrols and a handoff requires human-approved budget — but says nothing about duplicate handling, permissions, or side effects.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action, which is good. But the opening 'Makers: be seen.' is marketing filler that does not help an agent decide or invoke, and the second sentence mixes param listing with workflow caveats.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained. Still, for a 4-required-parameter write tool with 0% schema coverage, the description leaves key details thin: the boolean 'tick' mapping is unclear and there is no guidance on market identifiers or contact format.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load. It does map all four parameters to human terms ('its name', 'its markets (one or more of the 20)', 'the tick', 'a contact a person can answer') and adds the useful constraint of 20 selectable markets. But 'the tick' is opaque for the media_exposure boolean, leaving a real gap.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Enrol a maker for media exposure in grocery', which is distinguishable from siblings like find_makers (search) and a2a_handoff (handoff). However, jargon such as 'the tick' and 'be seen' slightly obscures exactly what is happening, and no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

'Enrolment only — a handoff waits for a budget a person has approved' implies the boundary versus a2a_handoff, giving the agent a sense of when this tool stops and another begins. It does not, however, name the alternative tool or state preconditions for using this one (e.g., eligibility checks), so usage is only implied.

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