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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true and idempotentHint=false; the description adds the useful precondition and the idempotency-key retry behavior, which the annotations don't convey. However, it never says what is destructive — presumably credits are consumed — nor mentions cost, wallet impact, or that failure/refund requires a new request id (that nuance lives only in the schema).

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 with zero waste; the precondition is front-loaded and the retry guidance follows. Nothing to trim.

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 destructive, credit-consuming, non-idempotent creation tool with no output schema, the description covers the precondition and retry but omits what the caller gets back (draft/article id?) and what happens on rejection or refund. Adequate to invoke correctly, but an agent can't anticipate the cost or the follow-up step.

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 80% (only articleId is undocumented), so the schema carries parameter meaning; the description adds nothing about credits, pricingVersion, topic or articleId. Baseline 3 is appropriate since there is no compensating detail.

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?

"Draft one article" states a specific verb and resource with clear scope (single article), which separates it from sibling tools like soclo_articles_plan or soclo_articles_publish. It doesn't name an adjacent sibling such as soclo_articles_draft_quote or soclo_articles_edit, so differentiation is implied rather than explicit.

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?

"After the owner has seen the quote" gives a real precondition that gates invocation, and the retry rule ("Reuse clientRequestId on a retry") tells the agent what to do when a call fails. It stops short of pointing to the quote step (soclo_articles_draft_quote / soclo_articles_check_quote) or stating what to do if the quote was never seen.

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