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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing quota/consumption behavior: it counts against the monthly repurpose limit and burns one AI text action, which is exactly the kind of side effect an agent needs before invoking. It does not describe auth requirements or the shape of the extracted result, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and output, then the cost/alternative guidance. Every clause carries information; nothing is padding.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description adequately conveys what comes back (core message, key points, structure) and warns about quota cost. The only remaining gap is any detail about how the parsed result is delivered or limited in size.

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 100%, so the enum values and conditional requirements are already documented in structured fields. The description only echoes the input forms and the 50-20,000 character bound already present as min/max in the schema, adding no interpretive value.

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 (extract) plus the exact resources produced (core message, key points, structure) and the accepted input forms (URL, pasted text, Markdown). It also explicitly names the sibling it is not (repurpose_content) and the difference (no variants), so an agent can distinguish it immediately.

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 states both when to use it ('a preview of what repurpose_content would work from') and when not to ('prefer repurpose_content when the user wants variants anyway'), naming the alternative and the selecting condition. Little is left to inference.

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