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

The description discloses important behavior beyond the annotations: the operation is asynchronous and returns as soon as the job is queued, headlines appear within minutes, there is a strict rate limit of 3 requests per 24 hours per website, and at least one article credit is required. These are exactly the operational details an agent needs to avoid misuse.

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 unique value — purpose, when to use, async behavior, rate limit/credit requirement, and parameter handling. The most important functional information is front-loaded, and there is no redundant filler.

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 single-parameter tool with an output schema, this description covers everything needed to call it correctly: scope, timing, constraints, prerequisites, and parameter conditions. The async return behavior and rate limit are especially important for managing agent expectations.

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 website_id and its 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful guidance beyond the schema by instructing when to pass website_id (when the account has several websites) and pointing to get_account as the source, which compensates well for a sparse parameter set.

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 opens with a specific, concrete action: it queues a rewrite of headlines for every upcoming automatically planned article that has not been generated yet. It also explicitly scopes out custom articles, which clearly distinguishes this tool from single-article headline tools like suggest_headline or update_article_headline.

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?

It states when to use the tool: after changing the offer summary, audiences, or instructions so the calendar reflects those changes. It also gives an exclusion (custom articles are untouched), but it does not explicitly name an alternative tool for those excluded cases, so it stops short of full 5-level guidance.

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