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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description reinforces read-only while adding genuinely new context: synchronous execution, task support forbidden (so it is not a background/async task), and that the returned JSON is internal orchestration state. The presentation rules (use assistantSummary, never show raw JSON) are useful behavioral guidance. It does not contradict the annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, but it opens by restating the title verbatim (including a doubled period) and then appends a long boilerplate block of presentation rules. The behavioral notes earn some place, yet the duplicated title and run-on formatting contain clear waste.

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 spelled out, and the annotations plus description cover the safety profile and output-handling expectations. However, with four undocumented optional parameters and no selection guidance versus siblings, the definition is only adequately complete for an agent to call it 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% across four parameters (limit, seatId, seatName, advertiserId), so the schema alone leaves them undocumented. The description compensates only implicitly via 'one authorised advertiser' and adds nothing about limit bounds, seat identification, or required combinations, leaving the semantics largely unexplained.

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 (list active World Intelligence creative opportunities) scoped to one authorised advertiser, and clarifies what an opportunity is (human-review recommendation that never publishes creative). It does not name a sibling (e.g., get_world_opportunity or list_world_signals) to distinguish itself, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no routing to alternatives such as get_world_opportunity for a single item or list_world_signals for signals. The 'never publish creative' line clarifies scope but does not tell the agent when to pick this tool over its siblings.

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