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

Annotations cover the safety profile (non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world), so the description adds real value by disclosing the async contract: it returns an id and 'usually takes a few minutes.' It also enumerates the eventual output, which matters because there is no output schema.

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?

Two short paragraphs, front-loaded with what it does, followed by the async caveat. The return-value enumeration is long but defensible given there is no output schema.

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 an async job-starting tool with no output schema and fully documented params, the description covers inputs, latency, and eventual returns. The one gap is not stating that check_read retrieves the result, though the sibling name makes that inferrable.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds modest meaning by noting the document is optional and giving examples (pitch deck, memo, product brief) beyond the schema's file-type list, but nothing about URL format or limits.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Sigil's critique of a company's current brand') and the inputs it works from. It is clearly distinguishable from the polling sibling check_read by the 'Starts the work and returns an id' sentence, though it doesn't name check_read explicitly.

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 someone wants feedback on their brand, positioning, messaging, website or visual identity.' No exclusions are stated, and it never tells the agent that results must be fetched via check_read, which is the natural follow-up.

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