marketing_get_messaging

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only lists frameworks and gives a usage hint, but does not state that the tool is read-only, has no side effects, or any other behavioral characteristics. For a retrieval tool, this is a gap.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core content (frameworks) and ends with a usage instruction. No extraneous words; every part earns its place.

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 output schema, the description could be more complete by indicating what form the output takes (e.g., textual descriptions, bullet points). It adequately lists what is covered, but lacks details on return format or depth. Adequate for a simple retrieval tool.

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 tool has no parameters, so the input schema provides no semantics. The description adds value by specifying exactly which messaging frameworks are included, which compensates for the lack of parameters. The 100% schema coverage baseline is 3, but the description elevates it.

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 explicitly lists the messaging frameworks provided (value-proposition canvas, StoryBrand SB7, strategic narrative, message hierarchy). This clearly indicates the tool's purpose of returning content about these frameworks. The title is null, but the description itself is specific enough.

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 includes 'Use after positioning is set,' which gives a conditional usage context. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like marketing_get_persuasion or marketing_get_voice, leaving the agent to infer when to choose this tool over others.

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