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

The description contradicts the openWorldHint annotation. openWorldHint=true suggests the tool may access external resources, but the description explicitly states 'no external research or outbound actions.' This is a direct contradiction. While the description adds useful context about payment('Payment requires explicit wallet authorization') and that it returns a draft, the contradiction warrants a score of 1.

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 and front-loaded with the purpose. It packs the core action, constraints, and payment requirement into two sentences without significant fluff. It is slightly dense but remains efficient and readable.

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 tool has 5 parameters, including payment signatures and a nested input object, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the input structure, how payment authorization works, what the result draft looks like, or how the cryptographic fields are used. The contradiction with openWorldHint further undermines completeness.

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 and explain the parameters. It does not. It mentions 'buyer-supplied information' but fails to detail the required 'brief', optional 'audience', 'source_text', or the payment/signature fields. The agent gets no guidance on how to populate the input, making this a critical gap.

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 action: 'Create a dated or relative-day editorial calendar with channel, theme, asset, and objective.' It identifies the resource (editorial calendar) and the key components, and distinguishes it from sibling tools like social_posts by focusing on calendar planning rather than individual post generation. The note 'Uses buyer-supplied information only' further differentiates it from research-oriented 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 usage context with 'Uses buyer-supplied information only; no external research or outbound actions,' suggesting it is for when the buyer already has the needed information. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives such as social_posts or content_campaign_agent. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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