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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true), the description adds valuable behavioral details: it does no external research, takes no outbound actions, returns a draft for human review, and has explicit payment/wallet authorization. These are non-obvious traits that help the agent know what to expect. No contradiction with annotations.

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 four sentences with no fluff. The main purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and optional details like price are placed near the end. It is concise yet informative.

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 and 0% schema description coverage, the description must fully explain both inputs and outputs. It falls short: it does not specify which parameter carries the objections or the intended audience, nor does it tie the payment requirement to any specific parameter. The output is only broadly described as 'a draft for human review,' lacking details on structure or required content. The agent would struggle to invoke the tool correctly without further investigation.

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 the parameters. While it implies 'supplied objections' might map to source_text and 'buyer-supplied information' to brief, it never clarifies the purpose of 'audience' or the payment-related parameters (payment_signature, result_expires, etc.). The description does not compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.

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 ('Write') and a distinct resource ('responses to supplied objections') and mentions key outputs like evidence requirements and follow-up questions, clearly distinguishing it from general copywriting siblings. It also sets boundaries ('uses buyer-supplied information only') that sharpen its purpose.

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 implies when to use the tool (when objection responses are needed) but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives like sales_call_script or outreach_email_draft. It offers constraints on inputs but no 'use this instead of' guidance, leaving the agent to infer based on the name and phrasing.

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