marketing_get_persuasion

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose any behavioral traits such as whether the tool returns static content, requires authentication, or has side effects. For a knowledge retrieval tool, minimal transparency is acceptable but not optimal.

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 sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's content and usage context, with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with key terms.

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 tool has no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description adequately covers what the tool provides and when to use it. It could be slightly more detailed about the type of output (e.g., text, templates) but is largely sufficient.

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 baseline score is 4. The description adds no parameter-level details, but since no parameters exist, this is appropriate.

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 it provides persuasion techniques, headline rules, and landing page structure, referencing specific authors and frameworks. However, it does not differentiate itself from sibling tools like marketing_get_copywriting_formulas or marketing_get_hooks.

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 while writing' as a vague usage hint, but it does not specify when to use this tool versus other marketing tools or provide alternatives/exclusions.

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