Homepage banners

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

Annotations already declare the operation as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds behavioral context by detailing the returned fields and the relationship with another tool (using catalogLink to resolve products). It does not contradict the annotations and provides useful information about the data structure and downstream usage.

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, composed of two sentences, with no redundant or extraneous content. It efficiently conveys the purpose, output fields, and a usage pointer. The structure is clear and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 that there is no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns (title, description, image, catalog link). It also provides a suggestion for further action (feeding catalogLink to oskelly_banner_catalog). While it doesn't cover error handling or pagination, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to 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?

The input schema already provides a description for the 'category' parameter, including its enum values and default. The tool description reiterates 'for a given audience segment' but adds no new information beyond what the schema already specifies. Since the schema covers the parameter adequately, the description adds marginal value, aligning with the baseline score of 3.

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 function: returning homepage promotional banners for a given audience segment. It specifies the resource (homepage banners) and the action (return), and lists the output fields (title, description, image, catalog link). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on search, filters, and product details.

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 implies when to use this tool: when you need banners for a specific audience segment. It also provides a follow-up usage hint by directing to oskelly_banner_catalog with the catalogLink. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives, the purpose is sufficiently distinct for an agent to select it appropriately.

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