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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to re-establish safety. It does add genuinely new context the annotations cannot convey: the call is free of charge and triggers no downstream hiring, job submission, or payment, which is exactly the reassurance an agent needs before drafting a brief.

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 sentences with the key differentiator ('Free') front-loaded and the negative scope immediately after. No filler, no repetition of the tool name, and 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?

Annotations are solid and there is no output schema to explain, but the description leaves meaningful gaps for a draft-object tool: it never says what comes back (a brief ID, stored artifact, or rendered text) or whether the brief can be retrieved or acted on later. The unenumerated 'service' enum is also unresolved, so an agent must open the schema to call this correctly.

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%, so the description carries full burden, yet it only names three of the five nested fields (deliverables, acceptance checks, budget). It omits the required 'service' parameter entirely, including its four enum values (wallet_research, coding, agent_integration, content), and gives no constraints such as the 1-10 item limits, the 10-2000 character objective range, or the budget format.

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 ('Create a structured work brief') and enumerates the core contents (deliverables, acceptance checks, budget). It also carves out scope against the payment-heavy sibling set by declaring no provider hired, job submitted, or payment sent, though it never names a specific sibling tool.

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 leading 'Free.' plus the three negations implicitly position this as a zero-cost drafting step to run before committing to a payment or escrow tool, which is useful implied guidance. However, there is no explicit 'use this when...' statement and no named alternative among the many prepare_/create_payment siblings.

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