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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions cost and the prerequisite, but does not disclose what happens after generation — whether the description is returned, stored on the agent, or shown to the user — nor what the id parameter refers to.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the action, output length, cost, and prerequisite with no filler. Very efficient.

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?

The description leaves out essential invocation details: what id should be, what the output looks like, and whether the generated description is persisted. For a tool with no output schema, this is too incomplete for an agent to use confidently.

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?

The input schema only defines id as a string, and the description gives zero explanation of what id means or how it relates to the agent. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description was expected 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: draft a 2-3 paragraph company description using AI, and the title clarifies the source is a website. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like generate_agent_script or scan_website_quick, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

It gives a clear precondition: company_website must already be set, plus a cost warning of 1 credit. This tells an agent when the call is valid and set expectations, though it does not spell out when to prefer this over related tools.

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