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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior; the description reinforces this and adds useful context beyond structured data: the returned JSON is internal application state, raw JSON should not be displayed unless explicitly requested, and assistantSummary should be used first. This helps the agent handle the output correctly.

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 is a single dense paragraph with the most important usage information front-loaded. Sentences about output and JSON handling are relevant but slightly verbose; some redundancy with annotations (e.g., 'Read-only and non-mutating') exists, but overall the structure is efficient.

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?

The description covers purpose, usage boundaries, output components, and output-handling rules, and an output schema exists. However, the parameter semantics gap is significant for a tool with a nested object input and a required 'intent' string; the agent still lacks enough detail to use the options 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 description coverage is 0% and the description does not explain the 'intent' or 'knownIds' parameters. The purpose gives a rough clue that 'intent' is the ambiguous request, but 'knownIds' (and its nested fields) is entirely unexplained, so the agent cannot know how to populate or use the optional identifiers.

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 opens with a specific, actionable purpose: 'choose the shortest safe LeanrIQ creative/adtech workflow when the caller is unsure which capability to use.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from the many direct action siblings by scoping it to ambiguous capability-selection requests and emphasizing 'shortest safe' workflow selection.

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 description explicitly says 'Use only for ambiguous requests; do not call this before every LeanrIQ action,' providing both when and when-not to use the tool. It stops short of naming specific alternative sibling tools, so it misses the full 'alternatives' bar for a 5.

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