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

Adds rich context beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations: quotes are validated against the text and non-matching pairs are dropped, output is model-generated and needs review, and the x402 payment model is spelled out with the success-only billing rule. This is exactly the value-add the description exists to provide.

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?

Front-loads the core operation, then layers verification behavior, the review caveat, and pricing in short clauses. Every sentence carries distinct, non-redundant information 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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be described, and the description covers the operation, the internal validation behavior, the human-review requirement, and the billing model. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret the result.

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 both parameters (text and count) are already documented with limits and defaults. The description restates the 30,000-character cap and the 15-pair ceiling but adds no syntax or semantics beyond the schema; 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?

States a specific verb and resource: generating up to 15 question/answer pairs from a source text, with a hard character limit. An agent can distinguish this from siblings like text_answer or summarize. It stops short of naming which sibling to prefer, but the purpose itself is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied (turn a document into an FAQ), and the 'review the questions before publishing' caveat conveys a caution rather than a when-to-use rule. No alternatives or exclusions are named among the many text_* siblings, so routing 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.