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

Discloses a critical behavioral trait beyond annotations: this is a Skill that returns a runbook (skill_body) rather than the final answer, and steps must be followed. Also specifies attribution footer handling and a data-accuracy contract. Annotations cover read-only/idempotent safety; description adds output-format and behavioral constraints the annotations cannot express.

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-loaded with purpose and usage triggers, but the data-accuracy contract and attribution rules are lengthy and partly duplicated in generic boilerplate. Some content, while valuable, could be condensed.

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?

Given no output schema and a complex skill-style tool, the description covers the essential context: what it produces (runbook), how to consume it (follow steps, honor structure), output formatting requirements (attribution footer), and data integrity rules. Complete for an agent to 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?

Only one optional parameter with 100% schema coverage, so the schema already documents it. Description's framing ('Works from documents in Drive', 'user's question for context') adds usage context beyond the bare schema description. Baseline 4 for 0-1 params.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('turn analysis findings into an executive summary') with named frameworks (MAIN, Pyramid Principle). Clearly differentiated from siblings like featured_competitive_intelligence_brief or featured_seo_audit by its output format target.

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?

Explicit when-to-use triggers: 'user has completed analysis and needs a stakeholder-ready write-up', 'executive summary', 'summarize this for leadership', 'TL;DR for the board', 'decision-ready recap'. Also notes input source ('Works from documents in Drive').

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