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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, non-idempotent). The description adds real value by clarifying that enrolment does not itself trigger the handoff — that waits on an approved budget — which is meaningful behavioral context. It still says nothing about permissions, duplication behavior, or the 'tick' semantics.

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 with dense information: scope, required fields, and the handoff boundary condition. The 'Makers: be seen.' fragment is throwaway marketing with no operational value, but the body is efficient and front-loads the action.

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 need not be explained, and annotations carry the mutation profile. What is missing is disambiguation of the tool's private vocabulary ('the tick', 'the 20', 'a handoff waits for a budget') and any prerequisite, which an agent needs to call this correctly alongside check_eligibility and a2a_handoff.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load. It does map all four parameters (name, markets with 'one or more of the 20', the tick/boolean, an answerable contact), but the mapping is cryptic — 'the tick' for a boolean media_exposure is not self-explanatory. Partial compensation for a total coverage 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Enrol a maker') and its domain ('for media exposure in grocery'), which separates it from search-oriented siblings like find_makers. The distinction from a2a_handoff is also implied by 'Enrolment only — a handoff waits for a budget.' Clarity is slightly undercut by unexplained jargon ('the tick', 'the 20').

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 clause 'Enrolment only — a handoff waits for a budget a person has approved' implies this is the first step and that a2a_handoff is a later, budget-gated action. However, it never explicitly says when to call this versus check_eligibility or find_makers, so usage remains inferred rather than stated.

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