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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and discloses the key operational requirement: the call costs $0.10 USDC on Base via x402 and returns an error with payment terms if the payment-signature header is missing. It also describes the deliverable's contents. It does not explicitly state side effects or return format, but for a generation tool this is sufficient and contains no contradictions.

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?

The description is front-loaded with purpose, then gives usage guidance, sibling alternatives, and the payment/error behavior. Every sentence carries necessary information and there is no filler or repetition.

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?

Despite having no output schema or annotations, the description is complete enough for an agent to decide when to use the tool and how to invoke it. It covers purpose, use cases, alternatives, expected input context, pricing, and error behavior.

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 description coverage is 100%, and both parameters already have meaningful descriptions and an example for query. The description adds no parameter-level detail, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Build a full go-to-market plan' and lists the plan's components: target audience, positioning, channels, and timeline. It also distinguishes the tool from siblings by naming generate-positioning-statement and generate-content-calendar, so an agent can tell them apart without opening schemas.

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?

It gives an explicit use condition: 'Use when starting from scratch or needing a whole plan.' It also provides clear exclusions and alternatives: for only a tagline/value proposition use generate-positioning-statement, and for a 30-day posting schedule use generate-content-calendar. This leaves no ambiguity about when to choose this tool.

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