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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context: execution is synchronous, task support is forbidden, and the returned JSON is internal application state for LeanrIQ/ChatGPT orchestration. It also warns against displaying raw JSON, which is valuable beyond the structured metadata.

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 moderately sized and front-loaded with the purpose. It packs in behavioral and response-related information efficiently, but several sentences about response formatting (assistantSummary, raw JSON) may be beyond the tool's core scope. Still, it is not overly verbose and each sentence adds some value.

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?

Given 9 parameters, an output schema, and many sibling tools, the description is under-specified. It fails to explain the tool's functional role in trafficking, what the parameters control, or how to interpret the output. The mention of internal state provides some context, but it does not enable correct invocation without relying on external knowledge.

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 mention any of the 9 parameters (accountId, flightId, creativeId, etc.) or the optional flags (force, dryRun). The description fails entirely to compensate for the missing parameter explanations, leaving the agent without semantic guidance for inputs.

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 clear verb ('preview') and resource ('trafficking output'), but does not define what 'trafficking output' entails or distinguish this tool from siblings like get_trafficked_assets or get_preview_link. It lacks specificity about what is being previewed (e.g., for a flight or creative).

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only provides response-formatting instructions ('Use assistantSummary first', 'Never display raw JSON') and does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or when this tool is preferred over other preview or trafficking tools.

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