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

The description discloses critical side effects beyond the minimal annotations: 'SPENDS MONEY', costs 1 credit, requires write scope, is capped, and has idempotent replay behavior. This provides the agent with the consequences of invocation, which the annotations alone do not convey.

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 dense but efficient; every sentence adds essential information (cost, scope, caps, idempotency, eligibility). It is front-loaded with the 'SPENDS MONEY' warning. No fluff.

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 money-spending mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, cost, prerequisites, limits, and acceptance criteria. It could mention the return value or failure modes, but it still provides enough for an agent to decide and invoke 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?

The schema already documents both parameters with descriptions, but the description adds important semantics: the idempotency_key must be client-minted, and repeats replay at no cost regardless of key. It also clarifies that loop_type must be a provisioned, runnable type, enriching the schema's simple examples.

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 clearly states the action: 'trigger one on-demand generation run of a growth marketing loop' and gives concrete examples (linkedin_post, geo_improvement, competitor_intel). It distinguishes from sibling tools like set_loop_cadence and get_loop_status by focusing on the on-demand execution.

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?

Provides usage context: requires 'write' scope, idempotency_key, is bounded by caps, and only accepts runnable, provisioned loop types (referencing get_loop_status). It explains the one-run-per-cycle idempotency behavior, which informs when to reuse keys. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools for scheduling or other operations, so it stops short of full when-not-to-use guidance.

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