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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds genuinely new traits: synchronous execution, 'Task support: forbidden', that nothing is persisted to Studio, and that the returned JSON is internal orchestration state with presentation rules (use assistantSummary first, never show raw JSON). That is well beyond the annotation set.

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 first sentence is a verbatim copy of the title, including the trailing double period, and is then followed by a long block of orchestration boilerplate. Redundant restatement plus tail-heavy formatting guidance means the actual useful signal (deprecated alias, doesn't save) is buried.

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 shapes need not be explained, and the description does clarify that the call does not persist anything. Still, for a 7-parameter, nested-object tool it omits anything about the required inputs and gives only an implicit deprecation signal, leaving notable gaps.

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 7 parameters, including three required ones (advertiserId, brandName, websiteUrl) and nested options/storage objects, yet the description explains no parameter, its format, or its defaults. The list of asset types loosely hints at the options object but conveys nothing actionable about required inputs.

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 concrete verb+resource ('Collect brand logos, imagery, colours, fonts, and visual previews') and flags itself as a 'Deprecated alias for get_brand_visuals', so an agent can identify both function and canonical route. It is not differentiated from get_brand_visuals beyond the word 'alias', but the purpose itself is unmistakable.

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 a usable trigger ('Use this before build_ad when a campaign needs visual grounding') and notes the read does not save to Studio. However, for a deprecated alias the critical guidance — prefer get_brand_visuals and avoid this one — is only implied by the word 'Deprecated', not stated as an instruction or exclusion.

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