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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: the two mode branches and the exact response shape { ideaId, mode, url, copy, note }, which is valuable since no output schema exists.

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 the core 'where traffic lands + copy' purpose front-loaded, followed by mode branches and a compact return shape. No filler; the explicit 'Returns:' line is slightly redundant with the prose but earns its place given the absent output schema.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description supplies the return fields and the mode-dependent URL semantics, which is what an agent most needs. The gap is parameter documentation, particularly response_format, which is left entirely to the schema name.

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%, so the description carries the burden and largely does not meet it. ideaId is only implicitly referenced ('For an idea...'), and the response_format parameter (with its markdown/json enum) is never mentioned at all.

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 gives a specific verb ('Show') plus the resource ('where ad traffic will land, and the copy on that page') and explains the two behavioral modes (generated waitlist sign-up page vs. founder's own site). It is immediately distinguishable from read tools like get_idea or list_ideas, though it never names a sibling to contrast against.

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 mode-dependent behavior implies this is the 'see what the ad will point at' step, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement and no reference to alternatives such as prepare_ad_run or generate_ad_assets. Usage context is inferable rather than stated.

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