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

Annotations only establish that this is a non-destructive write in a closed world; the description adds the consequential behavior beyond them: questions become immutable once the first wave fields (an irreversible commitment), scorer requires a paired metricId, and the call may return needs_confirmation (implying an approvalId retry loop). These are exactly the traits an agent must know 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?

Four dense sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does before the constraints. The em-dash asides carry real information rather than filler, though the prose is slightly chatty and could be tightened without losing content.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description does disclose the one non-obvious return condition (needs_confirmation). Combined with the freeze semantics and schedule behavior, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only the scheduled-wave failure/backfill behavior is left unspecified.

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 already 92%, so the schema carries most parameter meaning. The description still adds cross-parameter semantics the schema cannot express — that a `scorer` needs a `metricId` to post readings — and frames `questions` as the frozen trendline instrument. It does not explain interval/dayOfWeek interaction beyond what the schema states.

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 — creating a recurring research series that fields the SAME instrument on a schedule — and immediately scopes it with concrete examples (brand tracking, a weekly pulse) plus the key distinction that each wave is an ordinary study. An agent can tell this apart from the study-creation siblings without opening a 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 selection context: waves launch on schedule automatically, or on demand via prism_series_launch_wave, which routes the agent to the right sibling. It also advises getting questions right with the user before the first wave because they freeze. No explicit when-not-to-use guidance, but the alternative path is named.

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