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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds little beyond that — it hints at side effects (webhook Monday reminder, memory_key recording the call, draft 'before approval') but never states permissions, rate limits, or reversibility, so with annotations carrying the burden a 3 is appropriate.

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 opening states the tool's job and then the mode list is dense and front-loaded, with each mode entry pairing a verb with its required inputs. It is longer than average but nearly every clause carries routing or required-parameter information, so little is wasted.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and annotations cover safety. For a 17-parameter, six-mode dispatcher the description supplies the critical mode-to-required-parameter mapping, though it leaves some parameters (detail, start, weeks, per_week, audit_id, ideas) mapped only via the schema, which is acceptable given 100% schema coverage.

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 schema alone would justify a baseline 3. The description earns above baseline by stating which parameters each mode requires ('Needs keyword, competitors', 'Needs rows[{query, page, clicks, impressions, position, url}]', 'Needs urls', 'Needs html') — information the schema cannot convey, since required is empty and every parameter is optional there.

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 names a concrete deliverable ('What to write and how, in the site's own voice') and then enumerates six distinct modes — brief, topics, intent, voice, calendar, draft — each with its own output. This distinguishes it sharply from siblings like text_quality, answer_readiness, and check_keyword, which an agent can rule out without opening a schema.

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?

'Pick with mode:' plus per-mode needs (brief needs keyword, competitors; topics needs rows[...]; voice needs urls; draft needs html) tells the agent exactly how to route within the tool. What is missing is any when-not-to-use or explicit cross-reference to sibling tools, which is why this falls short of a 5.

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