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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context beyond annotations: the call is free, requires no sign-in, and returns generic (non-personalized) output. It stops short of describing the actual score output structure.

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?

It is front-loaded with the usage trigger and each of the four sentences carries distinct information (capability, cost/auth, personalization alternative, exclusion). Slightly dense but no 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?

For a single-parameter, read-only tool with full annotation coverage, the description covers capability, cost, auth, personalization scope, and exclusions. The only gap is that no output schema exists and the description does not sketch what the returned score looks like.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, including the 50-character minimum constraint. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already documents, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

The description names a specific verb (score/analyze) and resource (script) and enumerates the exact dimensions evaluated: hook, pacing, retention risk, and CTA. It distinguishes itself from the broader signed-in XcutAI toolset, though it does not call out a specific sibling like xcut_audit_content or xcut_find_hooks by name.

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?

It states when to use ('when the user wants a script scored on...'), an explicit exclusion ('Do not use for writing unrelated to social media or marketing content'), and the alternative ('for work based on the user's own posts, canvases or brand, use the signed-in XcutAI tools'). Both the when-to-use and when-not conditions are present, leaving little to inference.

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