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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, idempotent and non-destructive; the description adds the operational model the annotations cannot: nothing is dispatched, the draft is handed back for the owner to send, and the return is an operation handle to be polled via op_status. Missing is any note on what happens to a duplicate draft or whether redrafting overwrites a prior pitch.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and artifact, then the sending constraint, then the return contract. No filler and nothing buried.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by explaining that the result is an operation to be followed with op_status, and it covers the non-sending behavior. The remaining gap is workflow: it does not tell the agent the quote must be fetched first to supply credits and pricingVersion.

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 86%, so the schema already documents six of seven parameters (only candidateId lacks a description), which sets the baseline at 3. The description adds modest semantic glue by mapping 'offer' and 'ask' to the pitch body and noting the business's voice, but says nothing about channel, credits or clientRequestId beyond the schema.

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 ('Draft a pitch') plus the artifact's contents (offer, ask, next step) and the target (one creator, business's voice). That is far more than a name restatement, though it never names the adjacent steps (pitch_quote, pitch_edit) it must be sequenced against.

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?

It clarifies the boundary 'Soclo never sends it; the owner sends it by message or email', which is genuine usage guidance, but it gives no condition for choosing this over soclo_creators_pitch_quote or soclo_creators_pitch_edit, and never states the implied prerequisite of obtaining a matching quote first (credits/pricingVersion are required).

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