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

Annotations already declare a safe read-only, closed-world operation, so the description's extra context is a bonus: it discloses the 30-1500 word input bound and, importantly, that this tool consumes the same daily text allowance as analyze_transcript (a rate/quota constraint not visible in annotations or schema). It does not describe failure behavior when the quota is exhausted.

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 tight sentences, each earning its place: purpose with structure names, then return contents, then input bound and quota note. The rewrite purpose is front-loaded with zero preamble.

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 an output schema present, spelling out the returned sections/score/summary/tip is mildly redundant but reassuring, and the quota-sharing note plus word range cover the practical call requirements. Only the quota-exhaustion behavior is left unspecified, which is a minor gap for a read-only tool.

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-schema (topic example, context enum, transcript word range), so the schema carries the semantics. The description repeats the 30-1500 word bound but adds nothing about how 'topic' or 'context' shape the rewrite — the correct baseline of 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

The description names a specific verb ('Rewrite') plus the resource ('a speech') and enumerates concrete target structures (PREP, STAR, problem-solution, rule of three). It is unmistakably distinct from sibling 'analyze_transcript' — this one restructures, that one analyzes — and even names that sibling when discussing the shared quota.

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?

'Chosen to fit it' and the input word range imply when the tool applies, and the note about sharing the daily allowance with analyze_transcript hints at a usage constraint. But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance versus analyze_speech or analyze_transcript — the agent must infer that restructuring is a different intent from analysis.

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