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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing that plan generation blocks 30-90 seconds, that missing keyword research is kicked off in the background, that the plan self-fills within minutes, and the exact polling sequence (get_job kind=research, then get_plan). This timing and async behavior is exactly the context annotations cannot express.

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 sequence position and optional settings, then layers the timing caveat and the background-research workflow. Every sentence carries actionable information with no filler.

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 still explains what completion produces (a first content plan), how long it takes, and how to observe the result via polling. That is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly and follow up.

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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning for draftMode (articles land as CMS drafts for review instead of publishing) and mentions posts-per-week cadence. horizonWeeks is left to the schema, so it is not fully additive.

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 operation (finish site setup: set draft mode and posts-per-week, then generate the first content plan) with clear framing as step 3 in a sequence. An agent can distinguish it from siblings like create_site and generate_plan without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it (step 3 of adding a site), that re-running is acceptable, and names the prerequisite tool (create_site). It also routes the agent to get_job and get_plan for the async follow-up, so little is left to inference.

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