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

Annotations only declare non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world; the description adds quota ('up to 10 documents'), duplicate rejection ('refuses a text that is already there'), cost ('Uses no credits'), and the write-then-read side effect. These are exactly the behaviors an agent cannot infer from 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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause and every following sentence carries distinct information (sequencing, alternative, limits, return values, cost). Slightly dense and comma-spliced, 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 two-parameter write tool with no output schema, the description still discloses return values (document_id, read/ready flag), a hard cap of 10 documents, dedup behavior, and credit cost. Nothing an agent needs to call this 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 both parameters are already documented, but the description adds domain meaning by enumerating the content categories appropriate for 'text' (offers, story, results and proof, FAQ, audience notes). It stops short of adding format or length guidance beyond the schema's maxLength.

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+resource: saves pasted creator text as a Creator Brain document and then reads it. It also names what the text should contain (offers, story, results/proof, FAQ, audience notes), which distinguishes it from build_creator_brain and update_creator_profile without needing the sibling 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?

Explicit sequencing guidance: 'Use it before build_creator_brain, which turns the documents into the Brain', plus an explicit exclusion routing name/bio/niche to update_creator_profile. Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are covered with named alternatives.

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