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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint false, idempotentHint true, destructiveHint false, openWorldHint false), the description discloses billable AI usage, durable execution, the partial-failure policy ('completed_items_not_rolled_back'), idempotency-key derivation on mutations, and the seat-authorization requirement for writes. These are genuinely useful behavioral facts for a mutation tool. It remains somewhat boilerplate and 'bounded quality review' stays undefined.

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 and deprecation are front-loaded, and operational facts are grouped with labeled prefixes. However, a large share of the text is response-formatting boilerplate ('Never display raw JSON...') unrelated to selecting or invoking the tool, and the first sentence is repeated verbatim from the title.

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 operational/authorization behavior is well covered. Against a complex 18-parameter tool with nested objects and full schema-coverage gaps on the business inputs, though, the description leaves the agent without guidance on how to populate the schema.

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% across 18 parameters, so the description must carry the load, but it explains only idempotencyKey and the seatId/seatName write requirement. Core inputs (copy, assets, format, doohContext, campaign, creative, templates) receive no semantic explanation at all.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Create a DOOH-native, advertiser-aware two-concept build') and names two siblings it relates to: it does not route through Display 'build_ad', and it is a 'deprecated alias for build_dooh'. An agent can distinguish it from build_ad and knows its canonical equivalent. The jargon-heavy phrasing slightly muddles the core purpose.

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 'deprecated alias for build_dooh' note strongly implies the agent should prefer build_dooh, and mutation modes (validate_only, preview_only, execute) are listed. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use statement or direct instruction to prefer the canonical tool, so routing is left to inference.

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