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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, but the description clarifies that despite these, the tool performs no external actions and returns a draft for review, which mitigates the destructive connotation. It also discloses pricing and payment authorization requirements, which is valuable beyond annotations. The description adds context that helps the agent understand the tool's safety and scope.

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?

The description is concise, three sentences, with the core purpose and scope front-loaded. It covers key behavioral constraints, return expectation, and pricing/payment in a compact form. Each sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 description covers purpose, constraints, and payment, but given the nested input schema with multiple parameters and 0% schema coverage, it lacks critical details on how to structure the input fields. No output schema exists, so the description should hint at what the returned draft looks like, but it only says 'Returns a draft for human review.' This is insufficient for a tool with such a complex 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%, and the description does not explain any parameters. The 'input' object is nested with properties like 'brief', 'audience', and 'source_text', but the description gives no hint about their roles or required format. The payment_signature and other technical parameters are also unexplained. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation, making it hard for an agent to construct valid calls.

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 states a specific verb ('Adapt'), resource ('supplied copy'), and target ('requested language and region'), and mentions marking cultural/terminology uncertainties. It distinguishes itself from generic copywriting siblings by emphasizing localization and no external research. However, it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, so it doesn't fully leverage differentiation.

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 clearly states the tool uses buyer-supplied information only, performs no external research or outbound actions, and returns a draft for human review. This implies when to use it (when you have source text and a brief) and excludes scenarios requiring external research. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternative sibling tools for similar functions, so the guidance is clear but not comparative.

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