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

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and readOnly=false, but the description adds rich behavioral detail: asynchronous return, 1.5–6 minute per-panel timing, 9 credits charged only on success, alreadyDrawing behavior, silent run death on server restart with resume, and maxCredits refusal. This goes well beyond the structured annotations and does not contradict them.

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?

The description is dense but every sentence earns its place, covering async behavior, cost, idempotency, failure recovery, and stop semantics. It is front-loaded with the default action and immediate return, making the most important information available first.

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 complex, long-running, cost-bearing tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential operational details: start/stop behavior, credit charging, idempotent re-invocation, server-restart recovery, and progress monitoring via a sibling tool. An agent has enough context to invoke it correctly and know what to expect.

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 only 33%, so the description must compensate. It explains the meaning of action='start' and action='stop', and ties maxCredits to refusing expensive runs. projectId is left to inference, but its role as the comic project identifier is reasonably clear from the parameter name and required status.

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 specific verb ('draw') and resource ('comic's panels'), and clearly explains both the 'start' and 'stop' actions. It also distinguishes itself from aetherwave_comic_status by directing progress tracking to that sibling tool. The behavior of drawing pending or failed panels one at a time is unambiguous.

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?

The description gives clear context for when to call it: start draws missing panels, stop halts after the current panel, and it is safe to re-call at any time. It also points to aetherwave_comic_status for progress. It does not explicitly contrast with redraw_panel or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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