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

Annotations already declare this a safe, idempotent, non-destructive, closed read, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description usefully adds that a banner without a program shows 'none listed' and that with_program filters on that, but it says nothing about pagination behavior or the meaning of limit/offset.

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, no obvious fluff, and the filter rule is placed at the end where it is easy to miss. The run-on phrasing of the first sentence ('Pick the banners: the grocery banners of...') is awkward and slightly obscures the core 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 spelled out, and annotations cover safety. However, for a 5-parameter tool with zero schema coverage, leaving three parameters unexplained means the definition is not quite complete enough for an agent to call it fully correctly.

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 parameter burden. It clarifies 'market' and 'with_program' but leaves limit, offset, and search entirely undocumented in both schema and description, which is a substantial gap for a 5-parameter tool.

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 (list/pick) and resource (grocery banners of one market), plus what each entry carries (media program, card status). It does not distinguish itself from sibling list_banner_cards or get_banner_card, so it falls short of full sibling 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 gives one concrete usage rule: setting with_program=true returns only banners that have a program listed. Beyond that there is no guidance on when to choose this over list_banner_cards or get_banner_card, and no prerequisites are stated.

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