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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so 'Classification: read-only' is a repeat. The description does add something annotations cannot carry: 'Execution: synchronous' and 'Task support: forbidden', which tell the agent not to expect task-based invocation. Still missing auth needs, rate limits, pagination behavior with limit, and what happens absent advertiser context.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, but the opening sentence duplicates the title almost verbatim (including a stray double period), and roughly half the text is output-formatting instruction ('Never display raw JSON... suggest the next best LeanrIQ action') that is behavioral policy rather than tool semantics. The metadata list is terse but largely boilerplate.

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. But for a tool this complex (20 params, nested objects, multi-domain scoping across seat/advertiser/market/locale), the description explains no inputs and no behavior for missing scope values, leaving the agent unable to call it correctly beyond trial and error.

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?

20 parameters with 0% schema description coverage (limit, seatId, entity, languageVariantGroupId, marketLanguageProfile, etc.) and the description explains none of them. Per the rubric, low coverage means the description must compensate; it contributes zero parameter meaning, leaving the agent to guess at all 20. This matches the LOW calibration case of undocumented params at 0% coverage.

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 summary with evidence') plus a scope constraint ('no publication authority'). However, it gives no signal distinguishing this from the many siblings with near-identical resource names (get_world_research_insights, get_world_intelligence, get_world_research_decision), so the agent cannot tell what a 'summary' uniquely provides. Rubric level 4: clear purpose, no 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 only guidance is about how to present results ('Use assistantSummary first'), not about when to invoke this tool versus leanriq_get_world_research_summary, get_world_research_insights, or get_world_intelligence. No preconditions, no exclusions, no alternative-routing advice. Effectively no usage guidance.

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