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

Annotations cover the safety profile (non-destructive, idempotent, closed-world), so the description's main contribution is the credit and caching model: first write costs 1 credit, repeat calls for an unchanged product are free, cached per product per tool. That is genuinely useful cost/side-effect information an agent cannot get from annotations. It doesn't say what happens on a missing or changed product beyond invalidation, nor any error behavior.

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?

Dense and front-loaded with a consistent per-enum pattern that scans quickly; nearly every clause carries information. The opening phrase 'One of Text & SEO's 4 more tools' is filler that delays the actual purpose by a sentence.

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 compensates well by describing the shape of each artifact and the caching/credit model. The remaining gap is return structure — an agent cannot tell whether output is structured JSON, markdown, or free text, which matters for a text-generation tool.

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%, but the description goes well beyond the schema's terse 'Which Text & SEO tool to generate' by specifying the exact output of each enum value (counts of texts, headlines, hashtag sets, brief sections, calendar formats). It also ties product_id to meaning by explaining that caching is per product and invalidated when the product changes.

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?

The description names the resource (ad copy, social captions, creator brief, content plan) and enumerates exactly what each of the four enum values produces, so an agent can tell what it will get. The verb itself is implied rather than stated outright — the opening 'One of Text & SEO's 4 more tools' is awkward framing before the actual purpose appears. It does not differentiate from the sibling get_listing_copy, which also generates copy.

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?

The enum-by-enum breakdown effectively tells the agent which tool value to pick for which need, and the fact-grounding rule ('never invented specs, claims, discounts or reviews') sets an explicit constraint on use. What's missing is guidance on when to choose this over sibling copy-generation tools, which the description never addresses.

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