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

Annotations already cover readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false. The description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: creation does not assign to prompts, returns the saved public item (or null after removal) plus the working scanConfig, and does not trigger a Scan. These side-effect disclosures go beyond the 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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by workflow routing and return/side-effect notes. Each sentence carries information (workflow, exclusions, return shape). Slightly dense but 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?

Output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile; the description still adds the non-assignment and non-scan behavior an agent needs. The main remaining gap is the undocumented aliases/description parameters against a 25% coverage 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 only 25% (only siteId is documented), so the description must compensate for name, aliases, and description. It does not clarify any of these parameters; the mention of item.id refers to output, not input semantics. The gap in the three undocumented parameters goes unaddressed.

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 (Create) and resource (strategy product/service), and explicitly distinguishes it from business-profile products and tracked entities. It names the scope (on a Site or Topic), which lets an agent separate it from create_site, create_topic, and create_prompt without opening any schema.

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?

Gives clear workflow context: read get_scan_config.products for definitions/IDs, and pass item.id to create_prompt to assign it. It also states two exclusions (does not assign to prompts, does not launch a Scan). It lacks a crisp when-not-this-tool statement, but the alternatives are named concretely.

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