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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that the result overwrites the saved script, costs 1 credit, takes 60-90 s, and can degrade into an async job after ~200 s. Missing only failure/error behavior and permission requirements.

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?

Dense and front-loaded: what it produces first, then side effects and cost, then prerequisites, then the async escape hatch. Every clause adds information; nothing is padding.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, it covers what is produced, that it overwrites, cost, latency, prerequisite state, and the job_id handoff. Only error paths and what exactly the returned job represents are left implicit.

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 coverage is 100%, so the id, purpose enum (sales/support/info), and script_style enum are already documented in the schema. The description repeats the purpose values and 'chosen tone' without adding syntax or defaults beyond what the schema states (purpose defaults to the agent's direction).

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 plus the concrete artifacts produced (stages, full text, email/LinkedIn script). The email/LinkedIn scope partly distinguishes it from generate_phone_script and generate_support_script, though those siblings are never named explicitly.

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 clear preconditions (company_name and company_description must be set via set_agent_company) and a follow-up path (get_agent_job on job_id), which is real usage context. However, it never says when to prefer this over generate_phone_script, generate_support_script, or update_agent_script, leaving the alternative selection to inference.

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