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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, non-idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses that output is untrusted HTML, that it is not legal advice, that drafts may hallucinate details requiring verification, that provider configuration is needed server-side, and that the endpoint is free but rate limited. These are exactly the behavioral 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?

Six short, front-loaded sentences with no filler: purpose first, then output trust warning, then inference caveat, then operational constraints. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a generator with an output schema and rich annotations, the description covers trust, safety, and operational constraints well. The one gap is the total absence of parameter guidance for a 0%-coverage schema, which the agent needs to populate six fields 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 description coverage is 0% across six parameters (projectTitle, projectGoals, timeline, clientName, deliverables, serviceCategory), and the description mentions none of them. With zero schema documentation, the description carries the full burden and adds nothing about required fields, lengths, or formats.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Generate a scope-of-work draft.' That is clearly distinct from sibling generators like quotation_generate or retainer_agreement. It stops short of naming any sibling or contrasting scope, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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 lists operational conditions ('Free, no authentication required. Rate limited.') but never says when an agent should choose this tool over quotation_generate, agency_pricing, or risk_assessment. There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance; the agent must infer applicability from the tool name alone.

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