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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds that results are paged and the count is bounded, which is useful behavioral context, but it doesn't disclose return shape, ordering, or edge cases beyond what the schema and output schema imply.

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 tightly written sentences with the core operation front-loaded and the routing hint second. No filler, though it is slightly terse relative to the surrounding sibling set.

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?

With annotations covering the safety profile, a 100%-covered schema, and an output schema handling return values, the description supplies enough to call the tool correctly. Minor gaps around result ordering or what 'related' means are acceptable given the structured data available.

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 page, limit, and material_id are all documented in the schema with defaults and max. The description only alludes to paging and a bounded count, adding no syntax or semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (Find) and resource (Top Ads materials related to a known material id), which clearly identifies the operation. It doesn't sharply differentiate from the large tiktok_top_ads_* sibling family beyond the routing note, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to alternatives: tiktok_top_ads_suggestions for suggestions and tiktok_top_ads_analysis to inspect a single material's performance. It gives positive context for those siblings but does not state when NOT to use this tool or name the closest sibling (e.g. tiktok_top_ads_list).

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