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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that output is a 'draft' (not published or executed) and that destination tables are 'project-owned', but says nothing about overlap/unassigned policies or what happens if the config is invalid.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately tight, though its brevity is more a function of under-specification than disciplined economy.

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 tool with nested objects, low schema coverage, and multiple policy enums, the description is far too thin. It omits the draft lifecycle, the project_slug account constraint, and any explanation of the config policies, leaving the agent under-equipped despite the output schema.

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 only 25% (only project_slug is documented). The description gestures at 'page ranges' and 'destination tables' but leaves the nested config fields (mode, sections, overlap_policy, unassigned_policy, max_segments, fallback_section_key) unexplained, so it does not compensate for the coverage 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?

States a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('splitter draft') plus the distinguishing trait ('fixed page ranges', project-owned destination tables), which separates it from the logical-mode sibling. It does not explicitly name create_logical or update_page_range, but the page-range facet is clear enough to identify the tool.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives like splitters.create_logical or splitters.update_page_range. The 'draft' wording hints at lifecycle stage but leaves the choice among sibling splitters tools to inference.

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