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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, but the description presents the tool as a non-destructive generator that returns a draft for review. This is a direct contradiction. The description does disclose payment and lack of external research, which is useful, but the contradiction with annotations is a serious inconsistency that misleads the agent about side effects.

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, with three sentences that front-load the primary purpose and include essential context like payment and no external actions. It avoids unnecessary detail and is well-structured for scanning.

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?

Given the complexity of the schema (nested object, 5 parameters, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the expected structure of the input object, the purpose of auxiliary parameters like result_expires or signatures, or the exact return format. The mention of deliverables gives some idea, but critical execution details are missing.

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 of the five parameters. It mentions 'supplied keywords and facts' but does not map them to the input object's fields (brief, audience, source_text) or any other parameters. The description adds no semantic value beyond the schema, and with zero coverage it fails to compensate.

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 clearly states the verb 'Create' and the resource 'intent-led content brief', and lists deliverables (outline, coverage, links, review checks). It is specific enough to distinguish from generic tools, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling brief tools like blog_brief. Overall purpose is clear.

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 usage by stating it uses buyer-supplied information only, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor when not to use. No exclusions or alternative tool names are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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