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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: daily quota consumption (10/day), a 60-second dedupe window that returns the card as-is, bodyOptions/captionOptions saved but not auto-selected, and a returned url for reviewing/editing. This is exactly the side-effect and limit context the structured fields cannot convey.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the core action and output shape come first, then limits and caveats. Every sentence earns its place, though the mention of non-existent bodyOptions/captionOptions parameters adds slight noise.

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 still tells the agent what a result contains (url, status skipped) and the quota/save semantics. The dangling reference to bodyOptions/captionOptions not present in the schema is the main completeness gap.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load. It clarifies durationSeconds ('target spoken length') and the 1-5 contentIds range, but brandId and objective (the enum parameter) go unexplained, and it references bodyOptions/captionOptions parameters that do not appear in the input schema.

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 and resource (generate a full AI script) and enumerates the deliverables: hook, CTA, body and caption options, carousel slides. It distinguishes itself from the granular siblings (generate_hook_options, generate_body_options, generate_caption_options, generate_cta_options) by being the full-script generator.

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 useful invocation context (uses brand memory/references/web search when relevant; a card generated in the last 60 seconds is skipped), but never explicitly contrasts with the sibling option generators or states when NOT to use it. Usage is implied rather than routed.

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