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

Annotations only declare the generic mutation/safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false, openWorld=false). The description adds substantive behaviour: long-running background execution, the need to poll get_task_status with the returned taskId, the LinkedIn connection gate with a returned connect link, and how Instagram is attached (at publish time, or as a separate carousel via createCarousel).

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 transformation and the outcome, followed by the routing rule, prerequisites and the async polling note. Dense but each sentence carries distinct information; the Instagram caveat is slightly tangled and could be tightened.

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 an async, mutating tool with no output schema, the description covers what an agent needs: the required input form, the connection prerequisite, the return value (taskId), how to follow up (get_task_status), and the latency expectation. No gaps remain.

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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the prose adds meaning beyond the schema: createCarousel is clarified as producing a SEPARATE Instagram post versus the default publish-time attachment, and the productId format is tied to list_products. This is more than restating field docs.

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 (redesign/turn into), the source resource (plain PDF at a public URL) and the output (a new brand-designed document carousel rendered as a fresh PDF). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling create_document_post ('rather than posted as-is').

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 the trigger condition ('when the user wants a PDF redesigned or turned into a carousel'), names the alternative tool and why you would use it instead, and states the LinkedIn-connected prerequisite plus the fallback behaviour (returns a connect link). Nothing about when to pick this tool is left to inference.

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