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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the job is asynchronous, that it routes to 3-5 personas, which models are used for different voice types, that the return value is a job ID for polling, and that passing `personas` bypasses the router. This is substantial and honest behavioral transparency.

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 dense sentences carry all essential information without filler. The core async-job creation and polling return are front-loaded, and the persona-override caveat is placed where it is relevant. Every clause 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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, this description is quite complete: it covers what the job does, what it returns, and the key routing edge case. The main missing details are the semantics of the `from` parameter and the exact polling endpoint/mechanics, but these are minor against the overall coverage.

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 only 33%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It does explain `personas` richly—explicit slugs, ordering, router bypass—but `context` gets only an implied role ('routes context to...'), and `from` is not addressed at all. Partial compensation leaves a meaningful gap.

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 action—'Create an async narada job'—and clarifies the operation by describing the routing flow, persona count, model usage, and return value ('Returns job ID for polling'). This makes the tool's purpose concrete and distinguishes it from result-fetching siblings like fetch_narada_result.

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 gives actionable guidance about when to pass `personas` versus relying on the router, including an explicit limitation: the router matches keywords only and cannot honor include/exclude requests written in the context. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this one, so it stops 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.