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

Beyond the annotations, the description adds important billing and authorization behavior: the invoker is charged for agent AI and compute, each accessed Space owner pays infrastructure usage, included weekly coverage is consumed before purchased Credits, and membership does not authorize using another account's Credits. The destructiveHint is acknowledged indirectly through write Spaces and retention, but the description does not fully explain what retention='delete' destroys.

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 description is front-loaded with the purpose and key configuration choices, followed by billing and authorization constraints. Four sentences are dense and mostly earn their place, though the retention/destructive aspect could be stated more directly.

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 a 13-parameter, nested, destructive task-launching tool with 0% schema description coverage, the description leaves too much unexplained. It covers cost and permission context well but misses required parameters, mode selection, idempotency, retention semantics, and disclosure behavior, so an agent cannot call it confidently from the description alone.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, but it only covers read/write Spaces, retention, accepted_rate_card, and max_credits. It omits required parameters like request and idempotency_key, and gives no guidance on curator modes, timeout_seconds, destination_space_id, cross_space_disclosure, discussion, or public_research_queries.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Start a funded curator Task', and lists the key configuration axes (read/write Spaces, retention, rate card, max Credit budget). It is clear what the tool does, but it does not distinguish it from sibling run tools such as private_orchestrator_run or private_research_run.

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?

The description implies when to use it by describing a funded curator Task with exact space selection, but it does not compare it to alternatives or state when not to use it. An agent must infer that this is the right tool only when it specifically needs curator functionality.

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