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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two important traits: the call costs nothing ("Free") and it is non-persistent ("Not saved"), which prevents the agent from assuming a write occurred. It stops short of stating prerequisites (does the agent need an existing sales script?) or what happens on failure.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences: what it produces, then cost/state, then the routing instruction. No filler, and the most decision-relevant facts (free, not saved) are placed early.

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?

With no output schema the description correctly names what comes back (a call script and greeting) and warns that the result is ephemeral, which is the key thing an agent needs. It omits edge cases — behavior when the agent lacks a sales script, or length/format of the returned text — but the essentials for calling it correctly are present.

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 33% — only `id` is documented, and the description does not explain it beyond the schema's 'from list_agents'. It does add meaning for `call_objective` (it shapes the drafted script) and 'agent's language' implies locale behavior, but `voice_gender` is never mentioned in either place, so the description only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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 (draft) and a specific pair of artifacts (call script and greeting), plus the source material (the agent's sales script) and the dimensioning inputs (call objective, agent language). This clearly separates it from setup_phone_agent and from generate_agent_script, though it never names generate_agent_script as the tool that produces the underlying sales script.

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?

"Free. Not saved — pass it to setup_phone_agent (or let setup_phone_agent generate it)" tells the agent both what to do with the result and that skipping this tool entirely is a valid alternative. What's missing is the motivating condition — e.g. 'use this when you want to review or iterate on wording before applying it' — so the agent must infer why it would pick this over just calling setup_phone_agent.

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