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

The description meaningfully adds to the annotations by disclosing 'no external research or outbound actions,' 'Returns a draft for human review,' and the payment requirement with 'Payment requires explicit wallet authorization.' These are behavioral traits the structured fields do not convey, and they are highly relevant for an agent deciding whether and how to invoke the tool.

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 compact and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose, then constraints, output, and price. Every sentence carries useful information with no filler or repetition. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 the key operational context: what is produced, what input source is allowed, the human-review nature, and the payment requirement. However, it lacks any guidance on optional parameters, the result lifecycle, or output format, and there is no output schema to fill that gap. For a paid, non-read-only service, a bit more context would be needed for fully confident invocation.

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 compensate, but it never names or explains the parameters. 'Uses buyer-supplied information only' vaguely hints at brief/source_text, but there is no explanation of the required 'input.brief', the optional 'audience' and 'source_text', or the payment/result parameters like 'payment_signature' and 'idempotency_key.'

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 opens with a specific verb and artifact: 'Draft a factual press release with headline, lead, supporting details, and clearly marked quote placeholders.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling content tools like blog_draft or ad_copy by naming the exact deliverable and its components. 'Factual' also sets an important scope that differentiates it from more creative copywriting tools.

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 this tool through 'Uses buyer-supplied information only; no external research or outbound actions,' which tells an agent this is suitable when all needed facts are already in the buyer's brief. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, so the guidance remains implicit rather than explicit.

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