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

Discloses non-obvious behaviors beyond annotations: asynchronous execution, background processing, immediate articleId return, idempotency per query, and auth requirements (active subscription, agent API key). Annotations only say not read-only/not destructive, so the description carries the full burden and does so well.

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 two sentences plus a parenthetical, front-loading the main purpose then adding essential behavioral notes. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy 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?

For a tool with no output schema, the description covers the immediate return (articleId), background processing, polling/callback alternatives, idempotency, and auth. It omits error handling and timeout details, but is otherwise adequate for a tool of this complexity.

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 describes query and callbackUrl, but siteId is undocumented. The description's 'for a site' phrase minimally clarifies siteId's role, but does not add meaningful syntax or format details. Schema coverage is 67%, so the description partially compensates but not fully.

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 ('Generate'), the resource type ('SEO article draft'), and the target ('site targeting a search query'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like article-rewriter or blog-outline-generator.

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 provides explicit context for async operation ('generation runs in the background - poll get_article/list_articles, or pass callbackUrl') and idempotency. It does not explicitly contrast with alternative generators, but the purpose clarity makes the primary use case obvious.

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