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

Annotations only declare the generic profile (non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive); the description goes well beyond by disclosing the cost model — one monthly pitch allowance consumed, every prompt charged to the answer budget (one run per prompt per enabled model) — plus the 30-day expiry reset and archived-pitch revival. This is exactly the side-effect/cost context an agent needs before invoking.

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?

Two front-loaded sentences, each clause carrying distinct information (cost, budget charge, expiry reset, revival, next step) with no filler or redundancy.

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 non-idempotent mutation tool with no output schema, the description supplies the cost/budget consequences, the lifecycle effects, and the required polling follow-up. Nothing needed to call it safely and 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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, and the schema already tells the agent to source the ID from list_workspaces. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline 3 for high coverage 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?

States a specific verb (re-run) and resource (every prompt in a pitch workspace), with a clear scope qualifier ('every prompt') that separates it from the singular run_prompt sibling. An agent can identify the operation and its blast radius 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?

Gives clear context for use ('for fresh data') and routes the agent to the correct follow-up ('Poll get_pitch_status afterwards'), which is the necessary next step. It lacks an explicit when-not clause (e.g., prefer run_prompt for a single prompt), so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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