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

Annotations already declare non-destructive, non-read-only and open-world behavior; the description usefully adds that no changes are persisted and that a usage quota is consumed, which annotations cannot express. It stops short of describing the returned suggestion payload, which would matter for a preview tool.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the two constraints an agent must know (no persistence, quota cost). 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 tool with full schema coverage and clear annotations, the description covers the key behavioral facts. The one gap is that no output schema exists and the description doesn't state what the suggestion response looks like or how large it is.

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%, including a good example for 'instructions', so the schema already carries the semantic load. The description only gestures at 'instructions' generically and adds no format, length, or content constraints 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 (suggest/refine), the resource (an existing post), and the mechanism (AI + specific instructions) in one sentence. The phrase 'Does not save changes' separates it from update-post without the agent needing to open either 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?

The 'does not save changes' clause implies usage context (preview before calling update-post), but no sibling is named and no explicit when/when-not is given. 'Requires usage quota' is a prerequisite hint, not routing guidance. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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