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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the async/preview-grid behavior and the need to poll ids, but omits credit cost, whether the prompt is free-form or safety-filtered, and what happens on multi-count requests.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the async handling second. Appropriately sized.

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 6-parameter generation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers only the async retrieval pattern. Enum parameters like styleMode, aspectRatio, and cameraAngle and the meaning of count are left entirely to a sparse schema.

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 only 33% (only age and styleMode have descriptions). The description mentions no parameters at all — nothing about count, aspectRatio, cameraAngle, or the prompt's expected content — so it does not compensate for the coverage gap on a 6-parameter tool.

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 ('Generate an AI influencer portrait') and scopes it to social accounts or UGC-style posts. It is distinguishable from create_image by the influencer/UGC framing, though it never explicitly contrasts with that close sibling.

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 conditional guidance on retrieval ('Renders a live preview grid in app-capable hosts; poll each id with wait_for_image otherwise'), which is genuinely useful. However it says nothing about when to pick this over create_image, create_avatar_video, or other generation siblings.

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