Preview AI prompt model generation

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: it never calls a model, never reserves budget, and the estimate is not a guaranteed maximum. That is meaningful disclosure about side effects and result trustworthiness 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?

Two tight sentences with zero filler. The intent (review before generation) is front-loaded and the cost disclaimer follows immediately, so nothing is buried.

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 read-only, non-destructive preview tool with a fully documented nested schema and annotations covering safety, this is close to complete. Its reference to an 'estimate' hints at return content despite no output schema. A slightly clearer statement of what the preview returns would close the last gap.

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 every parameter is already documented in the schema. The description names the conceptual inputs (business context, competitors, model, market) but adds no syntax, formatting, or edge-case detail beyond what the schema provides. 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 title names it as a preview and the description implies the same with 'forecast.' It states it reviews business context, competitors, model, and market before generation, which is a specific scope. However, the verb 'Review' is slightly vague and it never explicitly names itself as a preview vs. the sibling 'ai_tracking_suggestions_generate', so an agent must infer the difference.

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?

'...before model generation' implies this is the pre-flight check to run prior to the generate step, which is useful sequencing context. But it never names the alternative tool (ai_tracking_suggestions_generate) or states when-not to use it. Usage is implied rather than made explicit.

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