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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the concrete side effects: credits are debited, an AI draft article starts generating, the result waits for review, and nothing is published. It adds the non-obvious exception that re-approving a failed generation is free, plus idempotency-key reuse guidance. This is exactly the behavioral context annotations cannot express.

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?

Front-loads the action, then layers cost, side effects, the no-publish guarantee, and the retry rule in compact sentences. No filler; every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

Output schema exists so return values need no explanation. Given the description covers cost, side effects, publication status, and retry semantics for a 2-required-param mutation, nothing material is 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%, so the description must compensate. It explains the non-obvious parameter well (send a unique idempotency_key and reuse it on retry), which is the only param needing clarification; brief_id is self-evident from the tool name, so the gap is minor.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Approve a draft brief') and immediately distinguishes itself from siblings by explaining it debits credits and kicks off article generation rather than publishing. An agent can tell it apart from create_brief, update_brief, and generate_article from the text alone.

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?

Gives clear context for invoking it (draft brief approval), routes the agent to get_plan_and_credits for the cost, and explains the retry case. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g., when to update_brief instead), but the usage conditions are explicit.

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