build_blocks

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the tool is read-only. The description uses 'builds' which could imply creation, but is likely a computational generation. It adds no behavioral detail beyond the annotations, such as what exactly is built or how the output is presented.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that is concise and to the point. No wasted words, but it could benefit from slightly more structure or context.

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 low complexity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is too minimal. It does not explain what the '7 Building Blocks' are or how they are derived from buyer research, leaving the agent without sufficient context to determine if this tool is appropriate.

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 100% with one required parameter 'market_name' described as 'The market/pipeline slug'. The description does not add any further meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 applies.

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 it builds the '7 Building Blocks from buyer research' and names it a '3-Part Promotion Invention', which provides a clear verb-resource pair. However, it does not distinguish this tool from similar siblings like 'research' or 'market_intel'.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor any prerequisites or context for invoking it. The description simply states what it does without explaining the appropriate scenarios.

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