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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered; the description adds useful behaviour beyond that: results are ordered newest first and each entry contains the title/hook/cta plus alternative body/caption variants. It does not disclose pagination or what happens when no generations exist, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the scope and return fields before the usage hint. No filler or restated title.

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?

There is no output schema, so spelling out the returned fields and sort order is exactly the right compensation, and the usage hint covers the workflow. The remaining gap is the undocumented limit/brandId parameters and no statement about result volume or pagination.

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% across three parameters, yet the description only implies contentId through 'saved for a content card' and says nothing about brandId or the limit parameter's role, default, or cap. With the schema carrying no prose, the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 (List) and resource (AI script generations saved for a content card), and enumerates the fields returned (title, hook, cta, alternative body/caption options). This is clearly distinct from list_contents and from the generate_* siblings that create the data.

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?

Explicitly gives the use case: 'see what was already tried before regenerating.' That ties the tool to the regeneration workflow, giving a clear when-to-use context, but it never names an alternative tool or states when NOT to use it (e.g. vs get_content or list_contents).

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