score_creative

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

Annotations already signal read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context by calling itself a 'transparent heuristic, not a proprietary prediction model,' which tells the agent what kind of logic to expect. This is genuinely beyond what the structured annotations provide.

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 dense sentences, no filler. The primary purpose and criteria are front-loaded, and the heuristic transparency note earns its place by setting expectations in one short clause. Every sentence contributes value.

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 could go a bit further by stating what the returned output looks like. However, the detailed list of scoring dimensions, the supported creative types, and the transparency cue cover most practical needs. It is almost complete for selecting and invoking 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already well-documented by the input schema. The description does not add deeper meaning for channel, audience, or brand_profile_id, but it does hint at how those parameters connect to the scoring dimensions. This meets the baseline for schema-heavy coverage without exceeding 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 names a specific verb and resource — 'Score a creative prompt, script, or ad concept' — and enumerates the exact scoring dimensions. This clearly distinguishes it from page-level and audit sibling tools without needing to name them. The criteria list leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 usage: if you have a creative prompt, script, or ad concept and need scoring, use this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools like score_page or audit tools, so the agent must infer selection boundaries from the resource type alone.

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