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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuine behavioral detail — that a missing program renders as 'none listed' rather than being omitted — which is useful beyond the annotations, but says nothing about paging behavior or result size.

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 the resource and return shape front-loaded; the filter rule follows. Phrasing like 'Pick the banners' is slightly informal, but nothing is padding.

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 spelled out, but the description does not compensate for 0% schema coverage on limit/offset/search. For a 5-parameter listing tool, an agent is left guessing what search matches and how paging behaves.

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% and only one of five parameters is addressed: with_program. Market is implied by 'of one market', but limit, offset and especially search (an anyOf string/null with default null) are left entirely unexplained in both schema and description.

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 concrete verb+resource: grocery banners of one market, plus what each row carries (media program, card status). An agent can separate it from get_banner_card/list_banner_cards by the plural 'banners of a market' scope, though the description never explicitly contrasts them.

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?

It gives one selection rule — with_program=true narrows to banners with a listed program — which implies the default lists everything. But there is no guidance on when to use this vs. get_banner_card (single banner) or list_banner_cards, and no prerequisites or exclusions.

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