Score ad

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

Annotations declare openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds useful context that the input must be a finished asset and what the return contains, but says nothing about cost/credits, auth requirements, or timing despite readOnlyHint=false implying a non-pure-read operation.

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: purpose and output fronts the text, usage trails it. Zero filler and every clause carries information.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by enumerating the returned dimensions, strengths, and fix. The only gap is operational detail (cost, latency, error cases), which keeps it just short of complete.

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 the schema already documents url, kind, and intent. The description only restates that the asset is an image/video URL and mentions goal fit, adding almost nothing beyond the structured field docs. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb (predict/score) and resource (a finished ad, image or video URL) and even enumerates the output dimensions. Scope is unmistakable, though it never contrasts itself against nearby siblings like check_ad_policy, analyze_video, or competitor_teardown.

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?

Gives clear usage context: 'Use BEFORE spending on distribution, or to rank variants.' That tells the agent when it is appropriate, but offers no explicit when-not or alternative tool for adjacent needs (e.g., policy checking).

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