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

Annotations declare the non-readOnly, open-world nature, and the description adds genuinely new context: fulfillment is handled by 'the studio' and completion is asynchronous, signalled by email. It doesn't state turnaround time or what happens if no email is left, but the core behavioral model is conveyed.

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 no filler; the core action comes first and the email behavior second. Every phrase carries information.

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?

With no output schema, the description should say more about what a request returns (an ID? a queued status?) and whether the request costs anything, given siblings like buy_cards and get_pricing exist. It covers the asynchronous model but leaves the response side unexplained.

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 25% (idea documented, email/faces/occasion bare). The description explains the email parameter's purpose (notification of readiness) and implies 'idea' is the request content, but faces and occasion get no mention in either place, leaving half the parameters unexplained.

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 gives a specific verb ('request'/'ask the studio to make') and resource ('a card that doesn't exist yet'), which clearly separates it from search_cards and get_card. 'Ask the studio' is slightly metaphorical but the intent is 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?

The phrase 'a card that doesn't exist yet' implies you should only use this when no existing card fits, but the description never says to search first or names an alternative path. Usage is only implied.

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