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

Annotations only flag destructive/openWorld/not-idempotent; the description adds the material facts an agent needs before committing — multi-minute runtime, roughly $0.30 of generation per account, and the reassurance that no customer-facing message is emitted. It also discloses side effects (writes a style guide, drafts posts, adds news sources/products) that explain the destructiveHint.

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 staff-only warning and the capability summary are front-loaded, then cost/time, then the safety and follow-up instructions. The middle capability list is dense but each item maps to real work the tool performs and justifies the destructiveHint, so it earns its place despite the length.

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 redirects the agent to get_customer_onboarding for progress and explains that no customer contact happens here, covering the return-value gap. Staff-only scoping, cost, duration, and next steps are all present, so nothing needed to call this correctly is missing.

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 schema already documents all seven parameters including the small_business/thought_leader enum and the sv default. The description restates the website-vs-Instagram fallback, which the schema's instagramUrl description already covers ('used only when they have no website'), so it adds only marginal meaning. Baseline 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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Set up a whole oriiion account for a customer') and then enumerates exactly what the setup entails — website/Instagram read, brand, images, news sources, products, style guide, first posts. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like research_website, generate_style_guide, or complete_onboarding, which cover only slices of this workflow.

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 explicit preconditions ('oriiion STAFF ONLY'), an explicit exclusion ('NOTHING is sent to the customer by this tool'), and names both the follow-up check tool (get_customer_onboarding) and the next action once satisfied (send_customer_welcome). The agent is routed through the full lifecycle, not just told when to fire the call.

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