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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the 1-credit cost and legacy status, but it does not say what the generated output looks like or what permissions/side effects are involved.

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 sentences, front-loaded with legacy status and the preferred alternative. The middle sentence about company name and description is inaccurate, but the description is still compact and scannable.

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 single-parameter tool with a fully described schema and no output schema, the description covers the alternative and cost. But with no annotations it should disclose more about what is generated and should not contradict the schema's parameter requirements.

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 schema has one fully documented parameter ('id'), but the description claims the tool 'Needs company name + description', which is inconsistent with the actual schema requiring only an agent id. That misleading parameter claim reduces the value of an otherwise complete schema.

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 ('support-script generator') and explicitly frames itself as legacy. The sibling alternative is named, so an agent can distinguish it, though 'old text-widget creators' is a bit vague about the artifact produced.

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?

Explicitly says to prefer generate_agent_script with purpose 'support', which is exactly the when-to-use-this-vs-alternative guidance needed. The legacy label reinforces that this tool should be a fallback.

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