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

The annotations already declare this as a safe read-only, non-destructive operation. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations by listing AdCP status lifecycle values and explaining that ext.agentry carries review status, published URL, and editor notes – useful information since there is no output schema. It does not cover authentication or rate limits.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by compact status semantics. No redundant or filler text.

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?

The description partially compensates for the missing output schema by describing returned status fields, but it gives no guidance on the account object or media_buy_ids filtering. For a read tool with a nested account parameter and zero schema description coverage, more parameter context would be needed for an agent to call it confidently.

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% across three parameters, so the description should compensate. It only helps interpret status_filter by naming AdCP status values; the nested account object, media_buy_ids, and filtering behavior are left completely undocumented.

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 states a specific verb and resource with scope: 'AdCP get_media_buys: current state of your orders.' This makes the retrieval purpose clear and distinguishes status retrieval from delivery-related tools by focusing on order state rather than metrics. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast with siblings such as get_media_buy_delivery.

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 phrase 'current state of your orders' implies when to use the tool, but there are no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool instructions. An agent must infer that this is the status-checking tool from the purpose statement alone.

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