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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the status domain (unclaimed/claimed/registered), which is useful behavioral context, but with an output schema present that state information may already be documented there. No mention of auth, rate limits, or error behavior.

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 short sentences with no filler, and the return-state enumeration is front-loaded before the parameter hint. It is appropriately sized, though the telegraphic 'banner = ...' style slightly undercuts readability.

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 two-required-parameter lookup the description covers the 'banner' accepted-format question well and the output schema handles return values. The gap is 'market': an agent has no idea what value format or scope that required parameter needs, which is a meaningful omission for a fully required-input tool.

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 usefully explains that 'banner' accepts a slug, id, or name, which is genuinely beyond the bare string type in the schema. However, the required 'market' parameter is left completely unexplained in both places, leaving half the inputs undocumented.

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 resource ('the signed card of one banner and its status') and enumerates the possible states, which clearly separates it from the plural sibling list_banner_cards. The verb is only implied by the name 'get', but the scope of the returned artifact 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?

The phrase 'one banner' hints that this is the single-item counterpart to list_banner_cards, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisite (e.g., resolving a slug/id first), and no named alternative. An agent must infer the routing from the singular/plural names alone.

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