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

The description goes well beyond annotations by disclosing the double opt-in email confirmation process, that only confirmed inquiries reach the studio, the one-business-day response time, and rejection of placeholder inquiries. These are critical behavioral traits not captured in the annotations.

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 longer than ideal but front-loads the purpose and includes an IMPORTANT warning. Each sentence adds useful information about the process, user action, and expected outcome. The structure is clear, though it could be slightly more concise without losing critical details.

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 the tool's complexity (payment avoidance, double opt-in, user data collection), the description provides a comprehensive overview of the workflow and side effects. It also instructs the user to check their inbox. It doesn't fully cover distinctions from all siblings or error scenarios, but the output schema covers return values, and the description is sufficient for effective use.

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?

With schema description coverage only at 25%, the description compensates by explaining key parameters: goal (needs real detail, 30+ chars, placeholders rejected), email (confirmation link goes here), and resolution (1080p, 4K, etc.). It also provides a general interview checklist covering audience, formats, and timing. However, it does not elaborate on all 12 parameters, leaving some optional fields (e.g., links, notes, constraints) to inference.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Start a Custom Production conversation without payment' and 'Submits a scope inquiry'. It distinguishes from related tools by explicitly noting 'without payment' and '4K Campaign Series must use this route before checkout', differentiating it from payment-based checkout flows.

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?

Provides clear guidance on when to use the tool: for custom production inquiries without payment, and specifically for 4K Campaign Series before checkout. It also instructs to interview the user first and warns that placeholders are rejected. However, it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools (e.g., create_checkout, submit_brief), relying on implication rather than explicit exclusions.

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