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

The description goes beyond the annotations by disclosing the destinations (advertising platform APIs and Opus Growth's hosting/WordPress), the preview-and-confirm gate, and the credit/access behavior. It confirms the destructiveHint by framing this as the write gateway, and clearly states read-only calls are rejected.

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 longer than average but every sentence carries essential routing or behavior information, and it is front-loaded with the purpose and core workflow. There is no filler or repeated schema content.

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 generic write dispatcher with a low-coverage schema, the description covers the prerequisite lookup, parameter meaning, target systems, read-only exclusion, confirmation gate, and access rules. Nothing needed for correct invocation is missing, and the presence of an output schema means return details do not need to be re-explained.

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?

The input schema alone only shows generic `name` and `arguments` fields with no descriptions; the description compensates by defining `name` as the exact tool name from search_tools and `arguments` as that tool's parameter object. It also tells the agent where to discover the parameter schema, which is the only viable guidance for a dynamic dispatcher.

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 names a specific operation ('Run a WRITING Opus tool by name') and enumerates the write categories it covers, so an agent immediately knows this is the generic write dispatcher. It also separates itself from siblings by stating that read-only tools are refused and belong on call_tool, and that search_tools should provide the exact name.

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?

It gives an explicit before-use workflow: call search_tools(query) first to get the exact name and argument schema, then invoke this tool. It also states the exclusion condition ('Read-only tools are refused here') and names call_tool as the alternative.

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