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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: the tool returns a link rather than a file, and the call is 'Free' — meaningful context given most sibling tools consume balance. It stops short of stating link expiry or auth requirements, so not a 5.

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?

Front-loads the return value in the first sentence, then lists the variants compactly, then closes with the routing trigger. Every clause carries information; nothing is padding.

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 no output schema, the description covers the return value (a download link) and the full parameter domain. Annotations cover the safety profile. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and the enum plus default are already documented in the schema. The description goes beyond that by explaining what each enum value actually contains (e.g. 'mcp' covers every tool, prices, long jobs, characters, comics, merch, troubleshooting), which helps the agent choose the right manual rather than just picking a valid string.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Returns the download link for an AetherWave user manual PDF') and enumerates the four manual variants with their scope, which no sibling tool overlaps with. An agent can distinguish this from the generation/comic/merch tools immediately.

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?

Gives explicit trigger conditions: 'Use it when the user asks for the manual, documentation, a guide or help with how AetherWave or these tools work.' That covers the main routing decision. It does not name a when-not case or an alternative, but no sibling competes for this intent, so the gap is minor.

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