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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose key behavior: the doc is read by Iris before drafting and persists across future drafts. It does not cover failure modes (duplicate title, invalid brand slug), permission requirements, or what the call returns.

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 waste. The core action and scope come first, and the use-case guidance follows immediately.

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 five-parameter create tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description supplies purpose, persistence, and consumer (Iris). The remaining gap is duplicate-title/error behavior, which is only hinted at in 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 coverage is 100%, so each parameter is already documented, including the empty-list fallback semantics for brands and addresses. The description reinforces the scoping model but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource: adding a doc to the playbook that Iris reads, with explicit scoping to brands and addresses. This clearly separates it from list_knowledge/update_knowledge/delete_knowledge by virtue of being the creation path, though it never names those siblings.

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 concrete when-to-use examples — a price list, a proven argument, a rule to follow — and the framing 'once, where every future draft will find it' signals persistence versus one-off notes. No explicit exclusions or pointer to update_knowledge for edits, so it stops short of a 5.

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