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

The description discloses important behavioral traits beyond the minimal readOnlyHint=false annotation: the document is saved to the user's files, rendered as a branded card in chat, is not a downloadable file, has no watermark or paywall, and should not be duplicated in the reply. This gives the agent an accurate model of the tool's side effects and output behavior.

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?

The description is longer than average but every sentence serves a purpose: purpose, input summary, output behavior, alternative tool, and retry guidance. The main use case and the key exclusion are front-loaded. Slightly verbose in the middle, but not padded.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description covers what the tool produces (a branded rendered card), where it saves the document, when to use it, when not to use it, and how to invoke it. There is no missing information an agent would need to call this tool correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that title is optional and defaults to the first heading (also in schema), and by clarifying that brand_kit_id is what applies the user's brand. It does not add much beyond the schema for markdown itself, but the added brand context justifies a 4.

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 verb and resource: 'Write one document in the user's brand and save it to their files.' It enumerates concrete use cases (to-do list, checklist, plan, notes, brief, summary) and explicitly distinguishes itself from generate_pdf, so an agent can tell exactly what this tool is for.

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 clearly says to use generate_pdf instead when the user wants a document to print, attach, or send, and frames this tool as for content the user wants to read in chat. It also gives a direct operational rule: never paste the markdown into the reply as well, and do not call again to retry.

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