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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two things an agent genuinely needs: the return shape (a generatedImage) and a concrete cost of 3 credits. It omits operational traits such as expected latency, failure behavior, whether generation is synchronous, or what the default style produces.

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 short sentences, each carrying distinct payload: action, return shape, price. The core action is front-loaded and there is no filler to trim.

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 two-parameter generation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials — what it makes, what comes back, and what it costs. Only secondary details like latency, failure modes, and guidance on the style enum are absent.

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 both the prompt and the style enum are already fully documented in the schema, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds no meaning beyond that — it never mentions the style parameter, its six options, or the default of modern.

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?

"Design a poster from a description" gives a specific verb (design) and resource (poster), which cleanly separates it from avatar_generator, meme_generator, and logo_mockup. It stops short of naming any sibling or scope boundary, so it's clear but not differentiating in writing.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of alternatives for adjacent needs (e.g., meme_generator for humorous images, logo_mockup for branding). Usage is only implied by the resource name, leaving the agent to infer selection logic from sibling names alone.

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