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

Annotations mark it destructive, idempotent, and open-world, and the description adds exactly the context those hints can't: the 60-120s runtime, safe-retry-on-timeout semantics, the 24h scrape cache, and the refusal rule for handles already owned elsewhere. This is precisely the behavioral detail an agent needs before invoking an expensive mutation.

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?

Front-loads what it does, then runtime/retry behavior, then the follow-up workflow — a sensible ordering. It is dense and runs long, but nearly every sentence (timeout retry, cache, ownership refusal, curation step) carries operational value.

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 slow, destructive, no-output-schema onboarding tool, the description covers duration, idempotent retry, ownership refusal, and the exact next steps. Nothing an agent needs to call and chain this tool correctly is missing.

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 handle, context, and force are already documented in the schema; the description adds only marginal detail on force ('re-derive DNA + photos') beyond the schema's own text. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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+resource ('Create and link a NEW pith.day account from a public Instagram handle') and enumerates the concrete pipeline steps it performs. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like connect_instagram and refresh_scrape by claiming to be the only tenant-linking tool.

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?

Gives explicit conditions (public handle, new account, refuses handles owned by another tenant) plus a full post-return workflow (curate_images, get_flow/set_flow). It does not explicitly compare against connect_instagram or refresh_scrape for the case of an existing tenant, which is the one remaining ambiguity.

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