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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does real work: it discloses asynchronous generation, per-type credit costs (100 vs 500), that charging happens when generation runs, and the default author behavior. It doesn't explain what the response returns (e.g., the article identifier needed to poll article_status), which is a notable gap for an async creation tool.

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?

Five short, front-loaded sentences: purpose first, then the author input, then the async/cost model, then the next action. Every sentence carries operational information and none is filler.

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 an async creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it creates, the inputs' sources, cost, asynchrony, and the polling step. It stops short of stating what comes back or how to identify the created article, which leaves one gap in the invocation loop.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds value beyond the schema by telling the agent where author_id comes from (list_authors) and tying article_type to concrete credit costs and the default. The topic parameter gains nothing beyond its schema text, but the other two are meaningfully enriched.

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 and resource ('Start an article in an author's voice') and immediately distinguishes itself from siblings by naming list_authors for the author input and article_status for follow-up. An agent can tell what this does and where it sits in the workflow without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly says to pass author_id from list_authors or omit it to use the active author, and to poll article_status for completion, which are the exact routing decisions an agent must make. What is missing is any when-not guidance (e.g., failure conditions or credit-exhaustion behavior), so it stops just short of the top score.

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