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

Annotations already cover the read-only/idempotent/non-destructive profile, yet the description adds real context: synchronous execution, task support forbidden, and that the output is internal application state. The human-facing presentation rules (use assistantSummary, never show raw JSON) are genuinely useful beyond the structured fields.

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 core purpose and the deprecation note are front-loaded, but the opening sentence verbatim-duplicates the title (including a stray double period) and the trailing orchestration boilerplate is generic padding that dilutes the signal.

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 needn't be explained, and behavior/output handling is covered. The remaining gap is the four fully undocumented parameters, which an agent needs in order to invoke this 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?

Schema coverage is 0% across four parameters, and the description only implies advertiser scoping via 'one authorised advertiser'. It never explains seatId vs seatName, the limit cap of 100, or default of 25, so it fails to compensate for the undocumented schema.

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 (list) and resource (World Intelligence creative opportunities), scoped to one advertiser, and explicitly names the canonical tool it aliases (list_world_opportunities), which distinguishes it from that sibling. The duplicated title text is redundant but not misleading.

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 list_world_opportunities' note effectively routes an agent to the preferred alternative, which is explicit guidance. It does not, however, state when the alias should still be used versus when it can be ignored.

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