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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It discloses the output nature ('returns a comprehensive, actionable developer prompt') and cost model, but does not explicitly state side effects or auth requirements. However, the tool's function suggests a read-only generation, and pricing adds transparency.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and the pricing information is briefly stated without fluff.

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 simple single-parameter interface with no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, output, and cost. It lacks details on failure behavior or prerequisites beyond 'completed report', but remains sufficient for an agent to select and 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?

Schema covers job_id fully with description 'The UUID job_id of a completed report.' The tool description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond that, so baseline 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Generate') and identifies the resource ('Cursor/IDE-ready prompt to fix AI readiness issues'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like analyze_url or get_report.

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?

The description implies usage when a report with AI readiness issues exists, but does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives or mention exclusions. The pricing info is tangential.

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