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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: grounding in content, Brand Truth and brand guidelines, an account-tier-dependent behavior (paid accounts research real search behaviour first), a latency expectation of one to two minutes, and an instruction to return the FAQs in full since there is no output schema. None of this is derivable from readOnlyHint/openWorldHint alone.

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 what the tool produces, then prerequisites, then the ask-before-calling rule and timing. Dense but every clause carries information; only the grounding phrase ('content itself, Brand Truth and brand guidelines') borders on listy 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?

Covers everything an agent needs for a generative, non-idempotent write: required inputs and their provenance, preconditions, tier-dependent variation, expected duration, and what the returned artifact looks like. No output schema exists, but the description compensates by describing the deliverable and how to present it.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds a real constraint the schema does not encode: the schema marks only 'project' as required, while the description states the source (url or draftId) is required and mutually exclusive. The 'guidance' parameter is left entirely 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 (writes a set of FAQs with answers) scoped to one piece of content, and names the brand-voice/grounding sources. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like create_key_points or create_draft, and even states the deliverable (FAQPage schema markup ready to paste).

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 lists the two valid source modes (draftId of a saved draft, or a site URL) and names the tools that produce a draftId. It also gives a pre-call routing rule: if the user supplied neither, ask which draft or page before calling. That is when-to-use plus a genuine gate, not just implied context.

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