generate_servicehawk_variants

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says 'ServiceHawk-safe' but does not define what that entails (e.g., compliance rules, formatting constraints). It does not state whether the tool is read-only, what it returns (e.g., a list of strings, count of variants), or if it depends on prior data from other tools. The behavior is vague and under-specified.

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-formed sentence that leads with the main action and object. It is concise with no redundant phrases or filler. It efficiently conveys the core purpose without over-explaining.

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 that there is no output schema and no annotations, the description must be self-sufficient. It does not describe the output format (e.g., a JSON array of strings), the number of variants generated, or what 'ServiceHawk-safe' means in practice. It also does not mention any prerequisites like needing to run summarize_winning_patterns first. An agent would be uncertain about the tool's exact behavior and return value.

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% – both 'cta' and 'angle' have descriptions, and 'angle' has an enum. The description's mention of 'known winning angle families' aligns with the angle enum but adds no new meaning. The description does not clarify default behaviors beyond the schema (e.g., default CTA is already given in the schema). Thus, the description adds no value beyond the schema, fitting the baseline of 3.

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 'generate' with a clear resource 'Meta still-image ad copy variants' and source 'known winning angle families'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like build_meta_ad_library_url or record_ad_swipe, which handle different concerns. An agent can identify this tool's unique function without opening the schema.

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 does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it reference sibling tools or exclusion conditions. The phrase 'from known winning angle families' implies a dependency but does not explicitly state when this tool is appropriate. There is no guidance on when not to use it or how it relates to other ad-related tools.

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