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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this tool has no side effects and can accept arbitrary situations. The description adds behavioral detail about the output content (length, required elements, prohibited elements) which is useful. However, it does not describe the return format (e.g., whether it returns a list of two strings or something else) or any error handling. Given the annotations cover safety, the description adds moderate value, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 description is a single, dense sentence that front-loads the core action and constraints. It is concise with no wasted words, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly. It efficiently covers the tool's purpose and key output requirements.

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 generation tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential usage: it states the tool writes two texts, specifies content constraints, and implies that the situation is the primary input. The optional parameters (rep, vehicle, dealership, etc.) are self-explanatory and can be inferred from their names. The only minor gap is the explicit return structure, but it is reasonable to assume the tool returns the two texts. Overall, it is complete enough for correct invocation.

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 17% (only 'situation' is documented). The description helps clarify that 'rep' and 'dealership' are used in the generated text ('names the rep and store'), but it does not explain 'vehicle', 'day_and_time', or 'customer_first_name'. The parameter names are self-explanatory, but the description does not fully compensate for the low schema coverage. It adds some context but not enough to warrant a higher score.

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 clearly states the tool's function: it writes two dealership follow-up texts based on a described situation, with explicit content constraints (under 300 characters, names rep and store, one question, a way out, no price/payment/trade value). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like rewrite_follow_up_text (which edits existing texts) and check_follow_up_text (which evaluates texts). The verb 'writes' and the resource 'two dealership follow-up texts' are specific and 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?

The description implies when to use it – when you need new follow-up texts for a given situation. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the purpose is clear enough from the verb and the sibling tool names. There is no explicit exclusion, so it gets a 3 rather than a 4 or 5.

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