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

Annotations only state the generic write profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true). The description adds the non-obvious behavioral facts: this writes only a DRAFT, nothing on Google changes, the result must be surfaced verbatim to the owner, and publication is gated on human confirmation via a different tool. That is real context beyond the annotations, and it is consistent with readOnlyHint=false rather than contradicting it.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler. The source, the accuracy precondition, the draft-only guarantee, and the human-in-the-loop publish step each appear exactly once and in workflow order.

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 one nested-parameter input, no output schema, and only generic annotations, the description carries the remaining burden and does so: it covers sourcing the input, the safety guarantee, downstream presentation, and the follow-up tool. Nothing an agent needs to invoke and route this correctly is missing.

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% and the nested object is documented with an example, so the structural baseline is 3. The description goes further by constraining what the values should be — confirmed factual claims about the business — which is semantic guidance the schema's 'true/false' mapping does not convey.

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 ('Draft yes/no answers to attributes') and names the data source (my_attribute_options), which is itself a sibling tool. That lets an agent place it precisely against propose_services, propose_categories, and the other propose_* siblings without opening any schema.

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 precondition ('only draft answers the owner has confirmed in this conversation'), an explicit next step ('publish it with publish_change only after they say yes'), and an explicit presentation instruction ('Show the owner the draft this returns, word for word'). When-to-use, when-not-to-publish, and the alternative tool are all named.

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