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

Annotations only cover the safety profile (not read-only, not destructive, closed-world), so the description carries the rest of the behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses that the call consumes the plan's article allowance (a quota/cost effect), that it is long-running ('takes a few minutes'), and that completion must be polled via get_article. These are non-obvious traits an agent cannot infer from the annotations or schema.

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?

Two short clauses with zero filler; the core action and precondition come first, then the operational notes. Every sentence earns its place.

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 mutating, asynchronous generation call with no output schema, the description covers latency, quota, and the polling path adequately. It leaves a real gap on inputs, notably the mandatory idempotencyKey and the relationship between projectId, siteId, and briefId, which an agent must guess.

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 0% across four required parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It hints at the brief via 'brief' but never explains briefId, siteId, projectId, or the required idempotencyKey, whose length constraints and duplicate-suppression purpose go unstated.

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 (write the article) and names the precondition (an approved brief), which separates it from generate_content_plan and publish_article in the same family. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with the nearest siblings, but the act and object are 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?

Gives a clear trigger condition ('for an approved brief') and the follow-up action ('poll get_article'), which tells the agent both when to call it and what to do next. It does not say what to do when no approved brief exists, so it is not fully prescriptive.

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