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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld/destructive annotations, the description discloses non-obvious behavior: the `media` filter silently falls back to the full list on no match, the TVer figure is guide-only and tax-excluded, and no other Ad Arch prices are returned. It does not discuss pagination or result sizing, so it stops short of fully covering behavior.

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?

Front-loaded with the usage trigger, followed by return contents and conditional rate logic. Dense but every sentence carries information; the only mild redundancy is restating the quote-request information already implied by the mandate list.

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 7-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the trigger, the returned fields, the filter/fallback semantics, the geographic condition, and the price-scope caveat. Given the output schema carries the return shape, nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the description adds meaning on top: `media` is a substring match on the medium name (not an exact key), and `city` is optional and defaults to the most populous city. `purpose` is confirmed as required. It says nothing about role/target/industry beyond what the schema already documents.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (list advertising media) and enumerates the per-medium facts returned (handled services, lead time, buying unit, video format, quote method). It clearly separates itself from siblings like get_tver_ad_monthly_rate by framing the TVer rate as a conditional add-on rather than the tool's core job.

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?

"Use this when the user asks which advertising media Ad Arch can arrange, or wants the facts about one medium" gives an explicit trigger condition, and it notes the prefecture/city condition for TVer rates. It does not, however, name an alternative tool to use when the user wants only the TVer rate, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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