Create billboard deal

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does reasonably well: it discloses that the deal goes live immediately, that media is mandatory, what identifiers come back, and a non-obvious negative behavior ('Never sets featured (paid) placement'). Missing auth requirements, whether creation is idempotent, and any rate limits keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler, and the most decision-relevant facts (live, media required, non-featured) are front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place and nothing is repeated.

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 12-parameter, 7-required mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the media prerequisite and even names the two return identifiers, which compensates for the absent output schema. Given the high schema coverage, remaining gaps (auth, mutation side effects) are minor rather than blocking.

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 83%, above the baseline threshold, so the schema already documents most parameters including the imageId/videoId relationship and default categoryId. The description adds only the media-or-video requirement, which duplicates the imageId schema text, and adds nothing to undocumented fields like isEnabled or altitudeMeters.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a live billboard deal at a real location') and distinguishes itself from update_deal/create_chirp siblings in the same toolset. The scope qualifier ('live', 'at a real location') is precise enough that an agent can pick this over list_my_deals or upload_media without opening a schema.

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 precondition ('Requires an uploaded image or video') is a clear, actionable when-to-use gate that tells the agent it must call upload_media first. However, there is no explicit when-not-to-use or mention of update_deal as the alternative for editing an existing deal.

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