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

Discloses many behaviors beyond annotations: async job with jobId, ~2 min minimum generation time, credit spend with creditsReserved and failure refund, and a 10 packs/hour rate limit. Doesn't fully explain what destructiveHint=true means in this context beyond credit spend, but the async/rate-limit/credit disclosure is strong.

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?

Very dense and informative, but poorly structured—parentheticals and stray clauses ('(It only errors...' etc.) make it a wall of text rather than front-loaded points.

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?

Complete for a 5-param async generation tool: covers credit cost, rate limit, polling via get_influencer_snack, expected latency, brand fallback logic, and sibling differentiation.

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 100% with all five parameters documented, so the schema carries parameter semantics. The description adds the meaning of the async output (jobId) but no new per-parameter detail beyond the 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 (Kick off/Generate), resource (snack content pack), scope (in the voice of a specific influencer), and explicitly names its sibling generate_snacks as the brand-scoped alternative.

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?

Explicit when-to-use ('+ New content' action on the influencer's Content tab), states brand context is automatic so no brand attachment is needed, names the failure condition (no brand at all), and clearly distinguishes from generate_snacks.

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