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

Annotations already declare mutation, idempotency, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond them: saving does not trigger a paid scan, capabilities should be checked first, and idempotencyKey should be reused on retry.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and key distinction. Every sentence carries useful information without repetition.

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?

The output schema covers return values and annotations cover safety, but for a six-parameter mutation with 0% schema description coverage, the description leaves several parameters unexplained. It is minimally sufficient, not 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% across six parameters. The description explains idempotencyKey retry behavior and lists platform values, but leaves brandId, url, label, and category semantics undocumented in both the schema and the description.

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 ('Save'), resource ('target'), supported platforms, and scope ('for this brand'). The sentence 'Saving does not start a paid scan' distinguishes it from scan_intelligence_target, so an agent can select it 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 a prerequisite ('Check capabilities first') and clarifies that saving is separate from paid scanning. It also advises reusing idempotencyKey on retry. No explicit named alternative for scanning is given, but the context is clear.

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