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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, yet it never says whether invocation is a read-only generation, what exactly is returned, or whether state changes. The phrase "edge-case handling" is the only behavioral signal and it is not explained, so the agent cannot predict the result of a call.

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?

Three short sentences with no wasted words, but the opening sentence is pure advertising and the substantive content (prompt, usage guide, edge cases) is buried at the end. Front-loading what the tool actually produces would improve it.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description must explain what comes back and any usage constraints; it does neither. An agent reading only this definition cannot tell whether it should call this tool for a restaurant marketing data-spec request or reach for a sibling library.

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?

There is a single optional `query` parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already explains scoping. The description adds nothing about how a query influences output (e.g., whether it filters a template library or is just passed through), but baseline 3 applies when the schema is complete.

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 is largely marketing copy: "Turn expertise into output" and "produce professional results in minutes" do not state a concrete verb or resource. Only the tail clause ("Includes the complete prompt, usage guide, and edge-case handling") hints that the tool returns a prompt-pack document, and even that is framed as bundled content rather than an action the tool performs.

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?

The only targeting is a vague audience mention ("restaurant and brand teams"); there is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or reference to alternatives. In a sibling set containing mkt-scene-library, mkt-sop-core, mkt-campaign-library and mkt-problem-library, an agent gets no basis for picking this one over the rest.

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