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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered without help from the description. The description adds that results are 'structured' and 'personalized,' but that describes output shape rather than behavior. No side effects, rate limits, pagination details, or other behavioral traits are disclosed, though an output schema exists to cover return structure.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that names the action, resource, scope, and result categories without any filler. Every word earns its place, and the core purpose is immediately clear.

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?

For a read-only query tool with a full output schema and 100% parameter schema coverage, the description nails the core purpose and scope. The only notable gap is the absence of an explicit pointer to the sibling browse tool for when the user does not have a specific track in mind, but that is an enhancement rather than a critical omission.

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 all eight parameters already have descriptive text. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond naming the result categories that map to accountTypes; that's marginal on top of the schema. The baseline of 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb ('Return') and a clear resource: structured promotion/submission opportunities personalized for one track, and it enumerates the categories (record labels, DJs, bloggers, playlist curators). It clearly conveys what the tool does, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling 'browse_submission_opportunities' tool, so it doesn't fully differentiate on its own.

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 phrase 'personalized for one track' implies the intended use case—use this when you have a specific trackId and want matched opportunities—but the description gives no explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of the browse tool for non-track-specific discovery. The usage context is only implied.

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