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

While annotations already mark this as readOnly and openWorld, the description adds valuable behavioral nuance: it is free, it assumes 4 panels per page, it can run high for short books, and character references add 6 credits each. This gives an agent an accurate model of how the estimate behaves beyond the annotation hints.

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 compact and front-loaded, opening with 'Free' and a clear definition before diving into caveats. Every sentence earns its place: the first defines scope, the second explains estimation behavior with a concrete example, and the third directs the agent to the next steps and cost adjustments.

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?

Given the small parameter surface, rich schema descriptions, and annotations, the description provides everything an agent needs to call this tool correctly and interpret the estimate's limitations. Even without an output schema, the description makes the returned quote's meaning clear, and it covers supplementary costs like character references.

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 meaningful semantic context by explaining the 4-panels-per-page assumption behind the pageCount parameter and clarifying that the estimate includes both script and panel credits. This goes beyond the schema's basic field definitions.

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 states a specific action with a resource: 'Quotes a comic before anything is made' and breaks down the quote into script and panel credits. It clearly differentiates this estimation tool from related actions like aetherwave_comic_draw and aetherwave_comic_status by positioning it as a pre-production estimate.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('before anything is made') and points to alternatives after the script exists: aetherwave_comic_status for the real creditsToFinishDrawing and aetherwave_comic_draw for maxCredits. It also explains the over-estimation caveat for short books, giving an agent concrete guidance on when the quoted number is less reliable.

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