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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. It does add genuinely new context: the generation is performed by Nokbase's own model and the brand context is injected as instructions, which tells the agent what it is actually invoking. It stops short of describing latency, cost, or what the returned text looks like, so it isn't a full 5.

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 sentences, zero waste. The core capability leads, and the routing constraint plus alternative follow immediately, so the most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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 single-call text generation tool with fully documented parameters and a complete annotation set, the description covers what the agent needs to choose and invoke it. No output schema exists, but describing return values is unnecessary for an obvious text-generation result, leaving only minor gaps around model behavior specifics.

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% and each of the three parameters (format, length, prompt) already carries its own description with defaults and token ranges. The description adds nothing about parameter behavior beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Generates text with Nokbase's own model') and clarifies the mechanism ('using the brand context as its instructions'). It also implicitly distinguishes itself from get_brand_context, which is named as the sibling used for the other path.

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 names the when: only when the user explicitly asks Nokbase to generate the text. Explicitly names the when-not and alternative: 'When you are writing the content yourself, which is the usual case, call get_brand_context and write it directly instead.' This is about as unambiguous as routing guidance gets.

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