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

With no positive annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds useful traits: free, roughly 30 seconds, provisional/sample-based output, a package layout, and a page link. It does not explicitly state whether a record or draft is persisted, so it stops short of a 5.

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 entire definition is two compact, information-dense sentences with no filler. Every phrase earns its place: timing, cost, output shape, page link, and the next tool to call.

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 there is no output schema, the description usefully describes what will be returned: a rough answer, sample, package layout, and page link. The workflow with review_estimate is also covered. It omits no critical choice point for this first-step tool, though some optional-parameter behavior is left to the schema.

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 the schema already documents all four parameters and the baseline is 3. The description lightly maps "new question" to objective and "sample" to dataset_ref, but adds no added semantics for tool_names or layout_objective.

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 opens with "START HERE for a new question," making both the action and the entry-point role explicit. It names the concrete deliverables: a rough answer over a sample, the complete package layout, section labels tied to the question, and a page link. It also distinguishes itself from review_estimate by calling that tool the next step.

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?

"START HERE" and "for a new question" explicitly state when this tool should be invoked before alternatives. "Then review_estimate with the user" provides the follow-up path and makes the boundary with review_estimate clear.

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