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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed world), so the description's job is to add content context — it does, by spelling out exactly which three components come back and how each flag modifies that set. It stops short of clarifying whether 'spoken' means audio or transcribed text, which matters for an agent's next step.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, payload contents front-loaded before the flag modifiers. Nothing repeated and nothing that could be cut.

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 no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by enumerating the returned parts. The only gap is that 'spoken' leaves the response medium (audio vs. text) ambiguous for what is ostensibly an audio-oriented tool.

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%, so both flags are fully documented in the schema itself. The description restates the effect of skip_intro and instructions without adding format, default, or interaction details beyond what the schema already provides — the baseline case.

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 resource and enumerates what the return payload contains: spoken introduction, question, and category menu with example titles. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_stories or start_story, which perform the actions this welcome merely offers.

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 description implies this is the entry point ('the Plot Speaks welcome') and explains when each flag applies, but never explicitly says 'call this first' or names an alternative to use instead in any circumstance. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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