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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing about whether deletion is permanent or soft, whether dependent assets are affected, or what happens when the target does not exist — and notably the schema marks both identifiers as optional while the description implies one is needed.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; every clause (the verb, the resource, the two selector keys) earns its place.

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?

For a destructive operation with zero schema description coverage and no output schema, the definition is too thin: it omits required-identifier semantics, deletion consequences, and error behavior, leaving the agent to infer too much before an irreversible call.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It does name both parameters and signals the 'or' relationship (alternative lookup keys), which is real added meaning, but it never states that one is required or what format the UUID takes.

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?

Specific verb (delete) plus specific resource (advertisement), and it names the two identifiers that select the target. It is easily distinguishable from create_advertisement, edit_advertisement, and get_advertisement, though it doesn't explicitly reference any sibling.

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?

No statement of when to use this versus edit_advertisement or clear_advertisement_cache_all, no prerequisites, and no guidance on confirmation or irreversibility. The only usage hint is the implicit 'use one of the two identifiers'.

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