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

Annotations already declare this is a non-idempotent, non-read-only, open-world write, so the bar is lower; the description goes well beyond by disclosing the two distinct budget costs (monthly pitch allowance plus per-prompt answer runs per enabled model), async result delivery, the 30-day auto-archive, and the refresh path. These are material side effects an agent cannot infer from the annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with the create action, followed by cost warning and then the async workflow. It is dense but every sentence carries distinct, actionable information (cost, async, follow-up tools, archive, rerun) with 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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description supplies the full operational picture: budget consumption, async polling target, downstream read tools, archive lifetime, and refresh mechanism. Nothing an agent needs to invoke and follow through correctly is missing.

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%, so baseline is 3, and the description reinforces that the domain drives prompt generation and frames optional parameters implicitly through the cost model (maxActivePrompts affects answer-budget charges). While it doesn't detail every optional field, the schema fully documents them and the description adds the domain-to-prompt semantic link.

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 ("Create a pitch workspace for prospecting") and immediately scopes what it does internally ("prompts are auto-generated from the prospect's domain and run ONCE"). This distinguishes it from siblings like create_prompt or create_brand without requiring the schema to be opened.

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 warning not to create speculatively ("a pitch is far from free — do not create them speculatively") plus the alternative flows named explicitly: poll get_pitch_status, then read via get_brand_rankings/list_chats/list_sources, and rerun_pitch to refresh. Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are covered.

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