marketing_get_copywriting_formulas

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It clearly indicates the tool is a read-only supplier of templates with no side effects. While it doesn't explicitly state 'read-only' or discuss rate limits, the simplicity and nature of the tool make behavioral expectations clear.

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, no redundancy. The first sentence lists the formulas, the second states usage. All information is essential and front-loaded.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately conveys the tool's purpose and output. Minor omission: the exact format of the returned templates (e.g., markdown, plain text) is not specified, but this is not critical for most use cases.

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 has no parameters, and schema coverage is 100% trivially. The description adds critical meaning by enumerating the specific formulas (PAS, AIDA, etc.), which effectively tells the agent what data the tool returns, compensating entirely for the lack of parameters.

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?

Clearly states the tool provides copywriting formulas with fill-in templates (PAS, AIDA, BAB, FAB, PASTOR, 4 Ps, 4 U's) for structuring headlines, ads, landing pages, or emails. This distinguishes it from sibling marketing tools like marketing_get_persuasion or marketing_get_voice which focus on other aspects.

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?

Implies use for structuring copy ('Use to structure any headline...'), but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or direct comparisons with siblings. The description does not indicate alternatives or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer based on sibling names.

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