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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only an example return value (`english`) and duplicates the read nature with a `[read]` prefix; no auth, rate-limit or error behavior is disclosed, which is acceptable but not additive.

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?

Two terse sentences, front-loaded with the returned field and its example, followed by the selector instruction. Nothing is padded, though the bracketed `[read]` is redundant with the annotations.

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 trivial single-value accessor with rich annotations and no output schema, the description conveys what is returned (a language string like `english`) and how to select the record. Only the ID/UUID format and the both/neither edge case are missing.

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 neither parameter has any description, so the description carries the burden. It does add useful meaning by stating that `advertisement_id` or `advertisement_uuid` should be passed (implying an either/or selector, despite both being optional/nullable), but it gives no format details for the UUID or says what happens if both or neither are supplied.

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 names a specific field of a specific resource: the content language (`advertisement_language`) of an advertisement, with an example value. That is enough to distinguish it from siblings like get_advertisement_variables or get_advertisement_faqs, though it does not explicitly call out those alternatives.

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?

Usage is only implied: the `[read]` tag and the instruction to pass an ID or UUID signal a simple lookup, but there is no statement of when to choose this over get_advertisement (which likely also carries language) or any preconditions/exclusions.

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