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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds genuinely new context: synchronous execution, task support forbidden, and that the returned JSON is internal orchestration state that must not be surfaced raw. 'Classification: read-only' merely repeats the annotation, but the output-handling constraints add real value.

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 and deprecation status are front-loaded, and the sentences are individually short. It loses a point for restating the title verbatim (including a doubled period) and for a fairly lengthy block of response-formatting rules that could be tightened.

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?

Given the complexity (15 parameters, nested objects) the description covers purpose, deprecation, execution model and output handling adequately, and an output schema exists so return values need not be described. The complete silence on parameters is the remaining substantive gap for a tool this wide.

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?

There are 15 parameters with 0% schema description coverage, and the description explains none of them. The high-coverage baseline does not apply, and the description does not compensate for the gap in any way.

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 concrete verb and resource ('Read saved advertiser creative opportunities and source provenance') and immediately classifies itself as a 'Deprecated alias for get_creative_intelligence', so the agent can distinguish it from the canonical sibling without opening either schema.

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 deprecation note signals that get_creative_intelligence is the preferred path, and the closing guidance explains how to respond to the user. However it never explicitly says 'prefer get_creative_intelligence' or states the condition under which this alias should still be called, leaving the when/when-not to inference.

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