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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, yet the description adds real substance: the returned package contains a public story.md plus a private answer key (secrets.md), and human review gates publication. The public/private split and the human-in-the-loop step are exactly the kind of context annotations cannot express.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler — purpose first, then the contents of the return. The nested parenthetical explaining story.md/secrets.md makes it slightly harder to parse than necessary, but every clause carries information.

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 correctly spends its budget enumerating what comes back (introduction, drafting/review approach, format template), which is what the agent needs. It falls short only in not connecting the two input parameters to differences in that returned material.

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 both parameters are fully enumerated with defaults documented in the schema, so baseline is 3. The description adds nothing about how genre or length change the returned material, so no credit above baseline.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Returns material for writing a Plot Speaks story') and crucially corrects the likely misreading of the name write_story — the tool does not write, it returns guidance material. It never names siblings like start_story, submit_story, or review_story, so the agent must infer the boundary itself.

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?

Usage is only implied: the agent can guess this belongs before drafting a story, but there is no explicit 'use this when...' statement, no mention of what to do after (draft, review, submit), and no guidance on choosing genre or length for a given situation.

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