Review ad script

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It lists what aspects are reviewed but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether it modifies anything, requires authentication, rate limits, or whether it is read-only. The tool appears non-destructive but this is not stated.

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 a single sentence, efficient and front-loaded with specific criteria. It could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points) but is concise and clear.

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 no output schema, the description does not explain the format or structure of the review results (e.g., a report, scores, or notes). Given the tool's complexity (multiple criteria), this omission hinders an agent's ability to parse the response.

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%, with all three parameters described in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 reviews a script against specific criteria like hook, problem, demo, proof, CTA, etc. It distinguishes from sibling tools that are generative (e.g., generate_hooks, write_ugc_script) but does not explicitly differentiate from other review-like tools.

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 implies usage after a script is written, but no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tools are mentioned. Sibling tools like generate_hooks suggest when to use alternatives, but the description lacks guidance.

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