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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/non-open-world, and the description's 'Classification: read-only' largely restates that. It does add genuinely new facts ('synchronous', 'task support: forbidden', and that the payload is internal application state consumed by orchestration), which is real value, but omits anything about the returned data's structure or freshness.

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 duplicating the title almost verbatim (including a double period), then buries the key 'deprecated alias' fact in the second sentence. The trailing response-formatting prescription is long and generic, and the most decision-relevant information is not front-loaded.

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 annotations cover the safety profile. But for a 20-parameter, zero-required read tool with 0% parameter coverage, the description leaves an agent with no idea what most fields mean, what a minimal valid call looks like, or which selectors are needed to scope to an advertiser.

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 20 parameters with 0% schema description coverage, and the description explains none of them — not even the identity selectors (advertiserId, eventId, opportunityId, seatId) or the many locale/market fields. The description does no work to compensate for an entirely undocumented parameter surface.

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 proposal with evidence') and explicitly labels itself a deprecated alias for get_world_research_proposal, so an agent can distinguish it from that canonical sibling. However, the leading sentence merely duplicates the title, and it never states which of the two the agent should actually prefer beyond the 'deprecated' label.

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?

Calling itself a 'deprecated alias' implies the canonical get_world_research_proposal should be used instead, which is useful context, but this is left implicit rather than stated as an instruction. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use rule, and most of the text is response-formatting boilerplate rather than selection guidance.

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