get_marketing_placements

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the transparency burden. It clearly states the output: 'a list of ad placements with product details, beacons, and positioning information.' This goes beyond a vague summary and sets expectations for the response structure, though it could disclose more about side effects (likely none) or session requirements.

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 sentences deliver dense, well-structured information. The first sentence defines purpose and scope; the second details the return payload. The placement list is slightly long but serves as a quick reference and aligns with the schema. No unnecessary words.

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 the absence of an output schema, the description appropriately summarizes return contents and domain inputs. It covers the placement contexts and gives a sense of what the agent will receive. It could be more exhaustive about edge cases (e.g., what 'non-search placements' means for `searchTerm`), but the essential context is there.

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%, and all four parameters have descriptions. The description adds value by explaining that the placement context is derived from the URL path segment and gives a comprehensive list of allowed values, which is redundant with the schema but reinforces usage. It also hints at the 'productFilters' parameter with a concrete example, enhancing understanding beyond the schema alone.

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 ('Retrieves') and identifies the exact resource ('marketing/advertising placements') with clarifying examples. It also geographically scopes it to 'Carrefour France', which distinguishes it from generic ad tools among siblings.

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?

Clear context is given: the tool is for placement contexts like 'home', 'search', 'pdp', etc. While it doesn't explicitly name an alternative tool for non-ad recommendations, the description's enumeration of placement contexts effectively implies when to use it. Explicit exclusions are the only thing missing.

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