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

Annotations already declare it as a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent open-world write. The description adds material context beyond that: a one-to-three-minute latency expectation, the return shape (markdown draft plus draftId), and a directive on how to present the output. These are the exact things an agent cannot infer from the annotations.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the action and artifact, then input routing, then latency and return, then the output-handling directive. No filler and nothing repeated from structured fields verbatim beyond what the routing requires.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by stating exactly what comes back (markdown draft plus draftId) and how to hand it to the user. Combined with the latency note and input routing, an agent has everything needed to invoke this correctly without a follow-up call.

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%, so every parameter including the brief/briefId split, guidance, briefTitle and templateType is already documented in structured fields. The description's 'Pass the briefId returned by create_content_brief, or a brief written elsewhere as markdown' restates that schema guidance without adding format or constraint detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 artifact ('Writes a publishable first draft in Hi, Moose from a content brief') and enumerates the grounding sources (brief, Brand Truth, brand guidelines, site crawl, polish pass). It is clearly distinguishable from create_content_brief (upstream) and create_featured_image (downstream), both named in the text.

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 routes the agent on which input to use: briefId from create_content_brief versus a markdown brief written elsewhere. It also names the downstream consumer of draftId and instructs 'Give the draft to the user in full.' No explicit when-not-to-use case is given, which keeps it at 4 rather than 5.

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