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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the return format (Markdown plus an AI Flowchart link), a side effect (if only a description is passed, a diagram is drawn first), a consistency guarantee (steps and roles always match the diagram), and the cost ('Uses 1 AI credit'). The annotations already mark this as a non-read-only, open-world, non-idempotent write, and the description complements that with concrete operational consequences.

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 the purpose and output contents, then moves to triggering conditions, input selection, and return/cost in a tight single paragraph. Every sentence carries actionable information; nothing is redundant 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?

With no output schema, the description correctly explains the return value (Markdown SOP plus a link that opens beside the diagram) and the cost/side-effect profile. For a 2-parameter optional-input tool, an agent has everything needed 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in structured fields. The description adds only lightweight framing — that the diagram link should come from an earlier result and that description is the fallback — which largely restates what the schema says. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Write a standard operating procedure') and enumerates the exact sections produced (purpose, scope, roles, numbered steps, decisions, RACI matrix). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like create_diagram or edit_diagram, which produce diagrams rather than prose documents.

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 a rich trigger list — 'SOP, work instruction, procedure document, process documentation, RACI or onboarding guide' — plus an input-routing rule (diagram link from an earlier result vs. a description when none exists). It lacks an explicit when-NOT-to-use or a named sibling alternative for the diagram-only case, so it stops 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.