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

Beyond the annotations (which only say readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), the description discloses real behavioral traits: it 'creates billable AI usage', execution is 'durable', evidence 'may be partial', mutation modes include validate_only/preview_only/execute, the partial-failure policy preserves qualified evidence, and it 'never publishes or activates creative'. The idempotency-key derivation and seat-precondition rules add further operational context. Remaining boilerplate about display formatting dilutes but does not negate this.

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 purpose is reasonably front-loaded, but the body is bloated: the title sentence is duplicated verbatim (with a stray double period), and a large block is dedicated to UI/response-rendering instructions ('never display raw JSON', 'use assistantSummary first') that belong in a system prompt, not a tool definition. Ratio of signal to boilerplate is poor.

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 described, and the description does cover the mutation/durability/billing/idempotency profile expected of a complex mutating tool. However, it omits how the core inputs (policy, advertiserContext, routine) shape the run and gives no sibling routing, leaving an agent under-informed about how to actually invoke 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?

With 9 parameters, deeply nested objects, and 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry the burden and largely does not. It explains only seatId/seatName semantics and idempotencyKey behavior (a field not even present in the schema), while policy, advertiserContext, routine/routineId, forceRefresh, and lookbackHours are left entirely 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?

The first sentence names a specific verb ('Run') and resource ('World Intelligence') scoped to one advertiser, and adds what it returns ('source-backed external context and creative opportunities'). It does not, however, distinguish itself from near-identical siblings such as get_world_intelligence, leanriq_run_world_intelligence, or run_competitor_intelligence, so an agent cannot route between them from this text alone.

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 statement of when to prefer this tool over the many world/competitor intelligence siblings. The only usage-adjacent content is a precondition for writes ('seatId or seatName must be supplied on that exact tool call'), which is a compliance rule rather than selection guidance.

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