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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it discloses that output is a draft for human review, that the tool performs no external actions, the price (0.25 USD), and that payment requires explicit wallet authorization. It does not contradict the annotations (destructiveHint=true is a platform-level flag; the 'draft for review' framing is consistent with a write operation).

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 and efficiently front-loads the primary purpose before adding scope, output, and pricing details. It is compact with no filler, though the payment details could arguably be trimmed since they may be standard across the platform.

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?

For a tool with nested objects and five parameters, the description covers the core deliverable, scope, output nature, and pricing. However, it omits any description of the return format and does not clarify the signature/idempotency parameters, which are likely platform-standard but still undocumented. It is adequate but has noticeable gaps.

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 carry the full burden of explaining parameters. It mentions 'buyer-supplied information' generically, which loosely maps to the input.brief/audience/source_text fields, but it does not explain the purpose of result_expires, idempotency_key, result_signature, or payment_signature. The technical parameters are left undocumented in both the schema and the description.

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'), a clear resource ('a timed scene-by-scene script'), and enumerates the deliverable's components (voiceover, visual direction, CTA). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like sales_call_script or podcast_outline, which target different formats.

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 sets an explicit scope constraint ('Uses buyer-supplied information only; no external research or outbound actions'), which tells an agent when it's appropriate to invoke (when all source material is provided by the buyer). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or conditions for choosing them over this one.

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