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

Annotations only declare it is not read-only, not idempotent and not destructive; the description adds real context beyond that — it is a single LLM call, it draws on the site's business profile, audience and guardrails, and it emits a section outline. It stops short of stating cost, latency or failure/retry behavior for the LLM call.

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, front-loaded with the pipeline position, then inputs/output, then the next-step routing. No filler and no repetition of schema fields.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by sketching the return structure and confirming the pipeline hand-off values. With 90% schema coverage on the 10 parameters and annotations covering the safety profile, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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 90%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds workflow meaning the schema cannot: `title` is the one chosen from generate_titles and `prompt` is the original brief from that step, which tells the agent where these values must come from. It says nothing extra about the remaining options (urls, articleType, link/video flags), leaving that to the schema.

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?

Specific verb (turn ... into) and resource (section outline), with the exact input pair (chosen title + original prompt) named. The output shape `{ sections: [{ id, title, ... }] }` further pins down what is produced, and the step-2 framing separates it from generate_titles and write_from_outline.

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 positions the tool as step 2 of the Builder and names both follow-on routes (write_from_outline with title+outline, or regenerate_outline with feedback). It gives clear context but does not state exclusions, e.g. when to prefer remix_from_urls or write_article_now instead of entering this pipeline.

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