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

The description adds meaningful behavior beyond the annotations: it promises no external research or outbound actions, states that it returns a draft for human review, and discloses a price with explicit wallet authorization required. These details usefully contextualize the destructiveHint and openWorldHint annotations without contradicting them.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by necessary constraints, return context, and pricing. Every sentence adds operational value, and there is no redundant phrasing or filler.

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 there is no output schema and heavily underdocumented parameters, the description is not complete enough for reliable invocation. It explains the high-level deliverable and some constraints, but leaves the meaning of required inputs like 'brief' and 'source_text' and the role of payment/signature fields largely to guesswork.

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 there are five parameters, including a nested input object and four top-level fields. The description only hints at 'audience' and 'buyer-supplied information,' leaving brief, source_text, result_expires, idempotency_key, result_signature, and payment_signature effectively unexplained. Since coverage is low, the description needed to compensate but does not.

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 action and resource: it creates learning objectives, modules, exercises, assessments, and delivery guidance for an audience. This clearly identifies a training-curriculum generation deliverable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the many sibling outline tools, relying instead on the domain-specific components to imply the distinction.

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 gives some operational context: it is for a 'supplied audience' and it 'uses buyer-supplied information only,' implying a use case where a brief and source text already exist. But it never explicitly states when to choose this tool over sibling outline services, nor does it provide any when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives.

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