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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing that work runs in the background, that a job_id is returned, that the price is charged on acceptance, and that research is included at no separate charge. This gives an agent clear expectations about side effects and workflow.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: purpose, required inputs, background workflow, billing model, and an illustrative example. The most important usage information is front-loaded, and there is no filler.

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 tool with no output schema, the description fully explains the return value (job_id), how to obtain final artifacts (polling check_deliverable_status until 'completed'), and cost implications. It also gives enough context about attachments and brief format for an agent to invoke it 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?

The input schema already specifies all parameters with 100% coverage. The description reinforces which fields are needed and adds a concrete example brief, but it does not substantially extend the schema-level meaning of the parameters. The baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource: it commissions a finished, skill-based document from an analyst. It gives concrete examples of deliverables (marketing plan, deck review, trend briefing) and distinguishes the long-running background task from sibling tools by referencing check_deliverable_status and list_analysts.

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 explicit context: choose this tool when a finished document is needed, provide a brief and offering, then poll with check_deliverable_status. It does not explicitly contrast with consult_analyst or other sibling tools, so it stops short of a full when-not-to-use explanation.

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