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

The annotation set only tells the agent this is a non-destructive, non-read-only, non-idempotent write in a closed world. The description adds genuinely useful behavior: 'Does not spend credits' and the validation floors for bio and sample. It does not say what happens on duplicate author names or what the call returns, which keeps it below 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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action, followed by the cost note and the two constraints. Every sentence carries information an agent needs, with no 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 a five-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, credit cost, validation constraints, and downstream use. It omits return value and duplicate-name behavior, but the core invocation context is present.

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 60%, so the baseline is 3. The description repeats the bio and sample length constraints that are already in the schema, but it does add the important semantic point that sample_content feeds create_article's voice. It leaves author_name, sample_title, and is_active semantics unexplained.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Create an author profile.' It also points at the downstream consumer, create_article, which helps an agent place the tool. It does not explicitly distinguish this from the sibling add_author_sample, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

It makes clear this is the tool for creating a new author and explains the role of the optional sample in enabling create_article to use the author's voice. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer add_author_sample or when not to call this, so the guidance is clear but incomplete.

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