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

Goes well beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, non-idempotent): it discloses latency ('several LLM calls, typically 1-3 minutes, returns when done'), the persistence state ('Nothing is saved or published yet'), and that saveDraft:true stores progress and returns a draftId. These are exactly the operational traits 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-loaded with the workflow position, then latency, then return shape, then persistence state, then next steps. Dense but every sentence earns its place; 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?

No output schema exists, but the description supplies the return shape inline ({ article: { title, sections, guardrails } }), plus latency and persistence semantics. For a complex 13-param nested tool, an agent has everything needed to call it 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 77%, so the schema documents most parameters. The description adds real value anyway: it ties title + outline together as the source, notes the accepted outline key ('sections'), and explains the saveDraft side effect (returns draftId). Remaining parameters like site, urls, articleType are left 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Write the full article from title + outline') and situates it precisely as 'Article Builder, step 3'. It distinguishes itself from generate_outline (input source), regenerate_section (partial fix), and publish_article_from_builder (publishing), so an agent can place it 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?

Explicit workflow guidance: use after generate_outline, then 'regenerate_section to fix one part, then publish_article_from_builder to put it on the plan.' It also gives the saveDraft: true conditional for storing a draft. Both when-to-use and the sibling alternatives are named.

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