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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, and the description adds meaningful context beyond that: an estimated duration (~one minute), plan requirements (paid plan or free first week), and a daily quota per workspace. These are operational facts 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?

Three tight sentences that lead with what the tool does, then the follow-up action, then constraints. No filler and no repetition of the title.

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?

Covers purpose, follow-up read, prerequisite research state, timing, plan gating, and quota. With an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values. It stops just short of noting what gets destroyed on rewrite, though the annotations flag destructiveness.

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% and both parameters are fully documented in the schema, including the idempotency-key retry behavior. The description adds no parameter-level detail, which is appropriate when the schema does the work.

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 (writes or rewrites) and resource (the battlecard for one core competitor), and clarifies timing ('now, instead of at the next cycle'). The pairing with get_battlecard for reading distinguishes it from siblings.

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?

Explicitly says to read the result afterwards with get_battlecard, and names the precondition ('the competitor needs finished research'). This tells the agent both when to use it and what prerequisite state must exist.

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