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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (not readOnly, not idempotent, not destructive), so the description's job is lighter. It still adds real behavior: no credit cost ('Free'), the defaulted targetAudience when omitted, and the returned id used for chaining.

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?

Four tight sentences, purpose front-loaded, each carrying distinct information (when to use, param advice, cost, return/next step). Slightly dense but no wasted filler.

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 return-value note is valuable, and the mutation intent is covered by annotations. However, for a 10-parameter creation tool with zero schema description coverage, over half the parameters give an agent no guidance at all, which is a meaningful 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only addresses two of ten parameters — guidance on description length ('a few sentences') and the derivable targetAudience — leaving name, industry, websiteUrl, logoUrl, appDemo(s), screenshots and language entirely undocumented anywhere.

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 ('Register a new brand') and disambiguates the resource by defining it as 'one of your end-customers', which separates it cleanly from create_influencer, create_character and similar creation siblings.

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?

'when none of the existing brands fit' gives an explicit precondition that implicitly routes the agent to list_brands/get_brand first, and 'pass that to generate_snacks' names the downstream step. It stops short of explicitly naming the alternative (update_brand) for existing brands.

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