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

Beyond the annotations it discloses the credit price (30 credits per run), a refund policy on failure, and an expected latency of up to a minute — exactly the operational facts an agent needs before committing a paid, non-idempotent call. This also reinforces the non-idempotent, open-world annotation profile without contradicting it.

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, front-loaded with the output set, then cost, then runtime — each sentence carries distinct, decision-relevant information with 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 paid generative tool with no output schema, the description covers deliverables, cost, refund, and runtime well. The remaining gap is the shape of the returned payload (field names/structure for hooks and scripts), which the agent cannot learn from any structured field.

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%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds real meaning by framing url and details as an 'and/or' pair, which tells the agent at least one product input is required even though the schema marks zero parameters required. It does not explain how tone or language interact with outputs, so it stops short of a 5.

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 uses a concrete verb (writes) and enumerates the exact deliverables: 10 ad hooks, 3 UGC scripts at 10/20/30 seconds, a caption and hashtags. It is far more specific than the title alone, but it never distinguishes itself from siblings like create_ad or create_video, leaving the agent to infer whether hook generation is a sub-step of ad creation.

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?

Usage context is implied by 'from a product page link and/or a description', which hints that at least one product input is needed and that both are acceptable together. There is no explicit when-to-use versus create_ad, no stated prerequisites, and no exclusions, so routing must be inferred.

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