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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation/safety profile is covered. The description adds non-obvious behavior: it does not run a search, existing citations and script options are preserved, and the system may override the setting for time-sensitive topics. These are genuinely beyond what the annotations 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?

The core action is front-loaded in the first sentence with zero preamble. However, the citation-preservation idea is stated twice ('preserving existing citations' and 'Existing citations remain available on the content and its references'), which is one redundant sentence.

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 simple boolean toggle with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: what it toggles, that it does not perform the search, side effects on citations, and an auto-enable exception. It is complete enough to call correctly, with the main remaining gap being the undocumented brandId parameter.

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 3 parameters, so the description carries the burden and largely fails to. 'On this card' loosely implies contentId and 'enable or disable' implies the enabled boolean, but brandId is entirely unexplained and there is no format, default, or interaction guidance for any parameter.

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 pair (enable/disable) and resource (manual web research for script generation on this card), and immediately scopes it against the obvious confusion with search tools via 'Does not run a search.' An agent can distinguish this toggle from generate_scripts or search without opening the schema.

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?

Clearly establishes when to use it (toggling manual web research for script generation) and adds a useful caveat that research may be auto-enabled for time-sensitive topics, which affects whether calling this is even necessary. It does not name a specific sibling alternative, but the trigger context is unambiguous.

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