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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world traits, so the bar is lower. The description adds real context beyond that: results 'may be partial,' opportunities are recommendations only, it 'never publishes creative,' execution is synchronous, and the payload is internal orchestration state. That is substantive disclosure.

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 description opens by repeating the title word-for-word (including a stray double period, 'creative..'), which is pure waste. The genuinely useful deprecation notice is buried mid-paragraph behind the restatement, hurting front-loading.

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 no explanation, and the annotations plus orchestration guidance cover safety and response handling. The gap is parameter documentation: three optional params with no semantics anywhere, which is a real omission for a tool an agent must call correctly.

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?

Three parameters (seatId, seatName, advertiserId) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description says nothing about any of them — no meaning, no interaction, no required/optional guidance. It does not compensate for the coverage gap, so it falls below the 0-param baseline of 4.

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 ('Get the latest advertiser World Intelligence summary') and identifies itself as a deprecated alias for get_world_intelligence, which distinguishes it from siblings. It stops short of 5 because the title text is duplicated verbatim rather than sharpening the 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?

Explicitly routes the agent: 'Deprecated alias for get_world_intelligence,' which tells an agent to prefer the canonical sibling. It also gives response-handling guidance (use assistantSummary first, never display raw JSON). It doesn't state when the deprecated alias itself is still safe to call, so not a 5.

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