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

Annotations already establish this as a safe read (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), so the description's job is to describe the payload — and it does, enumerating the five content sections returned and treating the result as authoritative instructions to be followed. The only gap is that it does not mention size, cost, or whether the guidance is stable across calls; with no output schema, the description is carrying the return-value burden well.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste: the payload is enumerated first, then the call-to-action. No hedging, no redundancy with the title or schema.

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 three-parameter read-only retrieval with no output schema, the description covers what comes back, why it matters, and when to invoke it — enough to call correctly. It falls short of complete because the parameters themselves are never explained in the description and there is no note on how large or structured the returned guide is.

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 67%, and the description never references campaignId, entityType, or idea directly — it only implies that campaign context and the type's guide are inputs. The entityType enum and the idea 'mention chips' behavior are already spelled out in the schema, so the description adds little meaning beyond structured fields.

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 specific resource — the generation instructions covering the type's writing guide, campaign context, quality standards, content language, and the expected JSON schema — and ties it directly to the create_entity sibling, so an agent can tell what it returns and why it matters. The verb is only implicit (it describes the payload rather than saying 'retrieves'), which keeps it just short of a 5.

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?

"Call it before writing a new entity, and follow it" gives an explicit when-to-use trigger and a follow-up obligation, which is exactly the routing an agent needs relative to create_entity. There is no explicit when-not guidance (e.g. for updates via update_entity), but the trigger condition is unambiguous.

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