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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses the asynchronous pattern (returns review_id immediately, preview takes minutes), the per-account daily preview limit, and the idempotency rule (same file + target journal returns the same review). These are exactly the behavioral traits an agent needs and that readOnlyHint/openWorldHint/idempotentHint alone do not convey.

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 the trigger and the async contract, and every sentence carries useful information (formats, limit, dedupe, follow-up, exclusions). It is dense but not padded; only minor tightening would be possible.

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 an async, rate-limited, idempotent tool with a nested file object, the description covers the full lifecycle: trigger condition, immediate return value, retrieval step, throttling, and dedupe. Output schema and annotations cover the rest, so nothing an agent needs to call it 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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real value by naming supported formats and the 50 MB size limit for the manuscript object, and by explaining that target_journal participates in the idempotency key — semantics the schema does not state.

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+resource (start a pre-submission manuscript preview) and precisely distinguishes it from get_manuscript_review, which reads the result. An agent can tell what this tool does and what it does not (writing/editing, figures, data files) without opening the 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?

Gives explicit when-to-use (user attached a manuscript and wants a review), the follow-up action (get_manuscript_review with the same review_id), and explicit when-not-to-use cases. It also routes the agent to the correct behavior during processing (report status only, no preliminary critique).

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