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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the lower bar applies. The description still adds non-annotation behavior: the sample is not published, only written social posts are produced, credit caps of the recipe are consumed, and the automation type must match — all decision-relevant facts beyond the safety hints.

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, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the core purpose lands first and the constraints follow. Slightly telegraphic wording ('saved recipe', 'credit caps') costs a little clarity but wastes nothing.

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?

Because an output schema exists, return values need not be described, and the 'does not publish' plus type-match constraints cover the most dangerous ambiguity. Still, with four undocumented required parameters at 0% coverage, an agent lacks enough to construct a valid call without inspecting the schema.

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%, so the description must carry the param burden but does not. It hints that an automation/recipe is referenced and a credit budget applies, but brandId, revision, and idempotencyKey are never explained or mapped to any argument.

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 ('Generate a paid review sample') and pairs it with the artifact's source ('the saved recipe and its credit caps'). The clause 'Only written social posts; the saved automation type must match this tool' distinguishes it from the many generate_*_automation_sample siblings, though it never names a sibling directly, keeping it below a 5.

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?

Provides a precondition ('the saved automation type must match this tool') and a negative scope ('Does not publish'), which implies this is a preview step before approving/publishing. However, it never names the alternative actions (approve_automation_sample, prepare_*, the other type-specific generate tools), so the agent must infer routing.

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