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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavior burden and does disclose the return payload: a generationId, 3 team designs, and a sensitive ownerToken that must be kept private. However, it omits generation cost/latency, permissions or side effects, and error behavior, so it is only adequate rather than rich.

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 operational content is front-loaded and useful, but the long multilingual trigger-keyword list is bloated and reads like keyword stuffing rather than lean tool guidance. The core sentences earn their place; much of the keyword list does not.

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 low-complexity, single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description explains what is returned and what follow-up call to make. It is nearly complete, though the lack of annotations leaves some behavioral context unstated.

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%, and the single problem parameter is already documented with guidance to be specific about who, what, and desired outcome. The description adds no syntax or constraints beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: it designs 3 specialized AI agent teams for a business problem using named coordination patterns. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling by explaining that generate_full_prompt is the subsequent step for turning a chosen team into a prompt.

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 explicitly says to use this tool when the user mentions listed trigger keywords, and it names generate_full_prompt as the follow-up with the ownerToken and chosen team. It does not state when not to use the tool or name a true alternative, so it falls short of a 5.

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