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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the async contract (returns job_id immediately so the connection need not stay open), the polling path via get_job, conditional ffmpeg mixing behavior, and per-tier pricing. It omits failure/refund behavior and whether a failed job still incurs cost.

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 tight sentences, each delivering distinct information, with the output manifest front-loaded and the async/polling contract following immediately. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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 multi-asset generation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what is produced, the async lifecycle, where to get results, and cost tiers. Gaps remain around failure handling, latency expectations, and the project_name parameter, but the core calling contract is complete.

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?

The description adds real semantics beyond the schema: it ties each tier enum value to a concrete price ($2.49 / $4.49 / $6.99), which the enum alone does not convey. The undocumented project_name parameter (accounting for the 50% coverage gap) is not addressed, so not a 5.

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 with exact output composition: 'logo x4, wide banner x2, alpha stickers x6, teaser, and music'. This clearly distinguishes it from single-asset siblings like generate_logo_kit, generate_banner, and generate_sticker_pack.

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?

The 'full kit' framing implies this is the one-shot alternative to calling the individual generators, and it explicitly directs the agent to 'Poll get_job for status, progress, and asset links'. However, it never states the inverse condition (use generate_logo_kit if you only need logos), so the routing is implied rather than explicit.

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