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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds behavioral context: it executes three internal tools in sequence, only uses verifiable first-party prices, and never auto-posts. No contradiction with annotations; it supplements them with operational details like the draft-only constraint.

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 well-structured with a clear summary, then USE WHEN/DO NOT USE WHEN sections. It is somewhat lengthy due to bilingual repetition, but every sentence serves a purpose and the key points are front-loaded. Minor redundancy from the Japanese/English duplication prevents a 5.

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 complex orchestrator with an output schema present, the description covers the workflow sequence, data constraints (first-party prices), and behavioral guarantee (no auto-posting). It also clarifies the prerequisite of having a named work item, making the tool fully self-contained.

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 100% with both parameters described. The description adds workflow semantics by explaining that 'work' triggers the intake/scan/draft chain and that passing 'quoted_price' activates the KIRA diagnosis. This goes slightly beyond the schema's individual descriptions, earning a 4.

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 states it is a 'One-call orchestrator returning audit + tactics + broadcast draft' and '司令塔' that runs the full intake→scan→draft sequence. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools by emphasizing the combined execution of all steps and explicitly notes it never posts.

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 provides explicit 'USE WHEN' and 'DO NOT USE WHEN' conditions, names alternative tools (intake_estimate, scan_tactics, draft_broadcast, ask) for single-step or free-form needs, and clearly states the orchestrator is for when all three steps are needed. This is exemplary guidance.

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