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

Annotations only say it is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive write. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: it consumes the account's monthly article quota like a dashboard generation, it returns a jobId immediately rather than blocking, expected runtime is 1-3 minutes, and the polling cadence. The parenthetical about client request timeouts explains *why* the tool is async, which prevents an agent from misreading an empty result as an error.

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 purpose, then behavior, then the async protocol — a logical and efficient order. The final parenthetical about legacy integrations hitting a 60s client timeout is helpful but slightly tangential and could be trimmed without losing any actionable instruction.

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 two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: quota side effect, async return shape (jobId), the polling tool and cadence, terminal states ('ready'/'error'), and the separation from publish_article. There is no gap that would cause a mis-call or a premature retry.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented (topic as working title, siteId as target site from list_sites affecting language/tone/SEO tags). The description only gestures at 'a given topic and site' without adding syntax, constraints, or defaults beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 first sentence gives a specific verb+resource ('Starts generating a new SEO/GEO-optimized article via AI') with scope qualifiers (topic, site) and explicitly separates this tool's output from publishing. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling publish_article by negation, so an agent can route correctly without inspecting schemas.

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?

Explicitly says 'Does NOT publish it — call publish_article separately once you're happy with it', naming the alternative and the condition that selects it. It goes further by giving the full follow-up loop (poll get_generation_status every ~15-20s until 'ready' or 'error'), which is exactly the when/how guidance an agent needs.

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