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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds meaningful context beyond them: 'no publication authority', that the payload is internal orchestration state, and that assistantSummary should lead the response with raw JSON suppressed unless explicitly requested. That is real behavioral disclosure about what the tool returns and how it may be used.

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?

The purpose is front-loaded and the length is moderate, but the opening repeats the title verbatim (including a doubled period), and roughly half the text is response-formatting boilerplate rather than tool documentation. It is not wasteful enough to be penalized heavily, but it is not tight either.

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 described, and the annotations cover the safety profile. The remaining gaps are significant for a 20-parameter tool: no parameter meaning and no sibling routing, though the presentation guidance partially compensates.

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?

With 20 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the schema documents none of them, so the description carries the full explanatory burden. It offers essentially nothing about parameters, only the phrase 'advertiser-scoped' faintly implying advertiserId; entities like seatId, eventId, opportunityId, locale and market fields are entirely unexplained.

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 ('Read advertiser-scoped World Intelligence V3 proposal with evidence'), so the core action is clear. However it does not distinguish this from the near-identical sibling leanriq_get_world_research_proposal or from other get_world_research_* readers, leaving the agent to infer the difference from the name alone.

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 no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and never names an alternative among the many get_world_research_* / leanriq_* siblings. The only conditional instructions concern how to phrase the reply, not when to select this tool over another.

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