marketing_prompts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly communicates a read-only browsing/showing behavior with no side effects, and it explains that results depend on which APIs are configured. It could add more detail about default behavior, but the read-only nature is sufficiently transparent.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. Filter values are enumerated usefully. Minor redundancy exists between 'based on your connected platforms' and 'based on which APIs you have configured', but overall it is tight and well-structured.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, source of data, and filtering options, and an output schema exists to handle return-value details. However, it omits any explanation of the 'format' parameter or the behavior when optional parameters are left empty, leaving a meaningful gap for a three-parameter tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the input schema's lack of parameter documentation. It does provide useful allowed values for 'category' and 'level', but it says nothing about the 'format' parameter, leaving one of three parameters semantically unexplained.

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 uses a specific verb ('Browse') with a clear resource ('ready-to-use marketing prompts') and a concrete context ('based on your connected platforms'). It clearly distinguishes this from a generator tool by emphasizing pre-built, immediately usable prompts.

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 the tool: when the user wants ready-to-use prompts filtered by configured APIs. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is specific enough for an agent to infer the intended use case.

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