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

The annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world operation. The description adds useful behavioral context by saying the response is a playbook covering when a channel works, how to win, and mistakes to avoid. It still omits output format and invalid-channel behavior, but it goes beyond the annotations.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core retrieval purpose and then presents the valid values compactly. The channel and framework list is dense but purposeful, and no sentence is wasted.

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 simple one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description explains what the returned playbook contains and which values are valid. It is nearly complete, though it does not describe the response format or what happens for an unrecognized channel.

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 already 100%, so the baseline would be 3, but the description adds substantial meaning by enumerating accepted channel values and framework values. It also clarifies that the single required parameter accepts a channel or framework name, compensating for the schema's lack of an enum.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: it returns First Sale Scout's playbook for winning first customers on one channel. It also specifies the playbook's content areas—when it works, how to win, and common mistakes—so the agent can distinguish this retrieval tool from a checklist or destinations tool.

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 first sentence implies when to use the tool: when an agent needs a first-customer playbook for a particular channel. However, it does not explicitly compare this tool with siblings like get_launch_checklist or list_launch_channels, nor does it state when not to use it.

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