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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the release is paid and manually distributed and that embargo defaults to ASAP, but it does not explain authorization needs, what happens after submission, processing status, or irreversibility.

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 definition is two front-loaded sentences with no filler. Purpose and field collection are stated efficiently, and the embargo default is included without unnecessary wording.

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 five-parameter submission tool with four required fields, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the main content fields and embargo behavior. It remains incomplete because the required order_id is undocumented and post-submission behavior is not described.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It meaningfully clarifies headline, full press release, media contact, and the optional embargo defaulting to ASAP, but it never explains the required order_id parameter, leaving a significant gap.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Submits a paid press release for manual distribution,' then lists the core content fields collected. This is clear enough to distinguish it from read-oriented siblings like get_pr_quote or list_pr_services, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 the release is paid and manually distributed, but gives no when-to-use guidance relative to siblings such as create_order or get_pr_quote. It also omits prerequisites like needing an existing paid order before submitting.

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