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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), and the description goes further by disclosing that the call spends credits from the linked account and that it usually returns inline but may return a task_id within a minute. Cost and latency disclosure is high-value context beyond the structured annotations.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action before the parameter and fallback details. Every sentence carries operational information; only the missing aspect_ratio note keeps it from being maximally efficient.

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 correctly covers the return contract (image or task_id) and the credit cost, which is what an agent needs to call and follow up. Coverage is strong; the only gap is no mention of the aspect_ratio option or any limit on how many images are produced.

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 already 80%, and the description adds real meaning on top: it explains that `tool` is a slug sourced from find_kavel_tool, that `prompt` carries the user's own details when a tool is supplied, and that `photos` vs `image_urls` are alternative photo sources. It does not explain `aspect_ratio`, but the schema/enum carries that.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create an image from a prompt, or edit the user's photo') and names the account scope. It also distinguishes its two modes (generation vs. edit) and references the relevant siblings, so an agent can place it against check_kavel_generation and find_kavel_tool immediately.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: use find_kavel_tool to get a slug for the `tool` param, and fall back to check_kavel_generation when a task_id is returned. It also states the precondition that photo tools require a photo via `photos` or `image_urls`, which is exactly the when-to-use context an agent needs.

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