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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the credit cost (80 credits) and the exact return payload (target audience profile, messaging, platform recommendations, example ad headlines, KPIs). This goes beyond typical purpose statements and gives the agent a clear idea of what to expect, though it does not state whether the tool is read-only or if it has side effects (likely none).

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 two sentences long, with the main action in the first sentence and useful additional details (returns, cost) in the second. No filler or redundant wording. It is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (generating a full advertising strategy) and no output schema, the description adequately lists the return components and mentions the cost. It also specifies the target market, which is a key contextual constraint. A minor gap is the lack of explicit guidance on how the language or platform parameters affect the output, but the schema covers those details.

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 100%, so the parameters are already well documented. The description adds context about the market (Egyptian/Arab) and outputs, but does not directly explain parameter semantics beyond what the schema offers. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema covers 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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Create a complete digital advertising strategy for the Egyptian/Arab market.' It specifies the resource (advertising strategy) and the target market, distinguishing it from siblings like media_spending or content_calendar. The listed outputs (audience profile, messaging, platform recommendations, example ad headlines, KPIs) further clarify its scope.

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 description gives clear context for when to use this tool: when the user needs a digital advertising strategy tailored to the Egyptian/Arab market. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the purpose is specific enough that an agent can infer it over siblings like marketing_ideas or write_copy. The cost note also helps set usage expectations.

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