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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds 'Execution: synchronous' and 'Task support: forbidden,' which are not in the annotations. It also clarifies that returned JSON is internal state, guiding display behavior. This adds meaningful context beyond the structured annotations without contradiction.

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 five sentences. The first sentence just restates the tool name and title, adding little value. The subsequent sentences provide useful operational instructions but are somewhat generic and could be trimmed or consolidated. It is not excessively long, but it contains some redundancy.

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's complexity (11 params, no param docs) and the existence of an output schema, the description still leaves significant gaps. It does not explain what a 'creative version' is, the relationship to creativeId, or typical use cases. The output schema covers return values, but domain context and parameter semantics are missing, making the tool under-specified.

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 description entirely omits parameter explanations, and schema description coverage is 0%. With 11 parameters and only one required, the agent receives no guidance on what seatId, taskId, assetId, etc., represent or how they relate to the operation. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 clear verb and resource: 'list creative versions.' The tool name and title align, and the operation is unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'list_creatives' or 'get_creative', though the resource name provides some differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It includes a 'Task support: forbidden' constraint and output presentation rules, but these are more about how to behave after invocation rather than when to select the tool. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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