get_craft_playbook

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

With no annotations present, the description carries full burden. It discloses that this is 'descriptive only' and not causal, that counts come from ads that survived and sometimes from shorter-running ones, and that it may return `unavailable` with a reason. It also specifies the nature of the data (counts over what survived), which is transparent about limitations.

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 relatively long but information-dense. Each sentence adds value: the opening defines the output, the middle lists specifics, and the end gives usage guidance and caveats. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, though it could be tightened without losing content.

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 tool with one parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is remarkably complete. It explains the full return content, the context of use, the caveat about causality, and the unavailable case. The agent has everything needed to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 the single parameter `competitor_id` already documented as 'The competitor id from get_competitor_channels.' The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema is fully self-sufficient. No extra compensation needed.

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's purpose: showing how a competitor's surviving ads are made, with specific craft pointers (hook, opening lines, shot length, etc.). It uses specific verbs like 'returns' and 'carries,' and the scope ('competitor's surviving ads') differentiates it from sibling tools like search_competitor_ads or get_competitor_patterns.

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?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: 'Use when asked "what works for <competitor>", "how do they make their ads", or when briefing an editor.' It also states when it returns `unavailable` and that it should be described plainly. However, it doesn't name alternatives or explicitly state when not to use it, so it misses the top score.

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