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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description does not contradict them. It adds behavioral details beyond annotations: wording differs per surface, over-limit items are reported in over_limit instead of truncated, and required_string is used verbatim without paraphrasing. This enriches the agent's understanding of the tool's behavior.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then expands into surface details, budget behavior, and parameter conditions. Every sentence serves a purpose—no filler. It is concise for the complexity it covers.

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?

With no output schema, the description adequately conveys the return value: disclosure text for each surface and an over_limit report for budget exceedances. It lists the surfaces and explains the over-limit behavior. While it doesn't specify the exact output structure (e.g., JSON keys), it gives enough for an agent to infer the shape. Given the tool's complexity, this is nearly complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the legal requirement for original_url (California Bus. & Prof. Code §10140.8) and clarifying that required_string should only be supplied when jurisdiction mandates exact wording, and is used verbatim. This goes beyond the schema's brief descriptions.

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 precise action and resource: generating MLS disclosure wording for edited listing photos. It clearly specifies the output is per-surface (MLS photo description, public remarks, print, syndication feed) and distinguishes it from sibling tools, none of which generate disclosure text.

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 clear context: it is for generating wording, not publishing; the licensee publishes it. It also gives conditions for optional parameters (original_url for California, required_string for mandated jurisdictions). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it lacks exclusions.

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