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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint; the description goes well beyond them by disclosing the rate limit (5 text analyses/day per network), the fact that the quota is shared with refine_transcript, and the modality limits of text input. Those are operational constraints an agent cannot learn from structured fields.

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 and every sentence adds routing value, but the middle clause enumerating return values (weak/filler words, rhetorical devices, scores, word-level issues) is largely redundant because an output schema exists. Slightly long, though still dense rather than padded.

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 3-parameter read-only analysis tool with an output schema, the description covers what an agent needs: input bounds, modality limits, the alternative for audio, and quota constraints. Nothing material is left for the agent to guess.

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% and all three parameters are documented in the schema (topic, context enum with default, transcript with word range), so the schema carries the load. The description restates only the transcript length, adding nothing about topic or context calibration beyond what the schema says — the baseline 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?

"Coach a speech from its text" names a specific verb and resource, and the description immediately scopes the tool to text input as opposed to audio. It explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling analyze_speech, so an agent can route without opening 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?

States the input window (30-1500 words), states a hard limitation (text cannot show pace, pauses, pitch or pronunciation), and names the alternative tool plus the condition for choosing it. It also discloses the free tier and the shared 5/day quota with refine_transcript, which affects which tool an agent should pick.

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