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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint=false, so the description carries the real load and does it well: it discloses the 3/day free ceiling, the 1,000/month Pro tier and its price, and a no-fabrication constraint. The word "Write" is about generating copy, not mutating state, so this is not a contradiction with readOnlyHint, though making that explicit would help.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the deliverable and language options, followed by compliance, honesty, and pricing constraints in descending order of importance. No filler sentences.

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 enumerates the returned artifacts (headline, word-counted description, social caption) so an agent knows what comes back. It also covers compliance and quota constraints. The only gap is not spelling out how the pro_key failure mode behaves when the free quota is exhausted.

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 57%, and the description adds meaning for language (en/ko/es) and pro_key (ListingLane Pro key unlocking higher volume). tone, listing_type, and specs/property/highlights are left to the schema, where the enums are self-explanatory but undocumented in prose. Adequate but no extra semantic lift beyond the JSON.

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 (write/generate) and a concrete deliverable set: headline, 120-180 word description, and social caption, from property facts in one of three languages. It is unambiguous what the tool produces, but it never names the sibling check_fair_housing_wording or explains the division of labor between generating compliant copy and auditing existing copy.

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?

Clear context for when to call it (you have property facts and highlights and need MLS copy) and explicit tiering guidance for the pro_key parameter, including free quota and paid unlock. It stops short of stating when not to use it or pointing to check_fair_housing_wording for verification of existing text.

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