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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent/destructive, so the marginal burden is lower, yet the description adds orchestration behavior: synchronous execution, task support forbidden, and presentation rules (use assistantSummary first, never display raw JSON, suggest next actions). Some restatement of the annotations ('Classification: read-only') is redundant, but the response-handling guidance is genuine added 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 is front-loaded, but the text is bloated: the title duplicates the description verbatim, the purpose sentence repeats, and there is a long tail of orchestration boilerplate. Much of it earns its place as behavioral guidance, but the duplication and length hurt structure.

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-value explanation is unnecessary, and the deprecation notice plus presentation rules cover the main agent needs. The remaining gap is the undocumented parameters, which the structured schema also fails to describe.

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 4 parameters, so the description carries the full burden but says nothing about limit, seatId, seatName, or advertiserId. 'one authorised advertiser' faintly implies advertiserId, but there is no guidance on mutual exclusivity of seatId vs seatName or limit behavior.

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 specific verb+resource ('List active, source-provenanced World Intelligence signals for one authorised advertiser') and explicitly contrasts scope against alternatives ('not a general-purpose news search'). It also identifies itself as a deprecated alias for list_world_signals, letting an agent distinguish it from siblings like get_world_intelligence or list_world_opportunities.

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 clear context ('current contextual intelligence, not a general-purpose news search') and routes the agent away toward the canonical tool ('Deprecated alias for list_world_signals'). It lacks an explicit instruction to prefer the canonical tool, but the deprecation notice functions as strong usage guidance.

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