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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does not meet it. "Includes the complete prompt, usage guide, and edge-case handling" describes pack contents rather than runtime behavior, and it is unclear whether the tool polishes a notice or returns prompt text — an ambiguity that actively misleads about the operation.

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?

Three sentences of promotional copy with no functional statement, and the most concrete phrase ("notice polish") is buried in the middle. Nothing is front-loaded that would let an agent decide to call it.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, and the description supplies neither return-value expectations nor input requirements. For a tool whose only parameter is an optional query, an agent has no way to know what content to pass or what it will get back.

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 100% for the single optional "query" parameter, so the schema already explains it. The description adds nothing about what the query should contain or how the notice content itself is supplied, but baseline 3 applies when the schema does the work.

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?

"Turn expertise into output" and "produce professional results in minutes" are marketing claims, not a statement of the operation. The description never says what the tool takes in (a notice draft? a restaurant scenario?) or what it emits, so the only signal about purpose is the name itself — essentially a restatement.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no differentiation from the many notice-* siblings (notice-rewrite-tool, notice-audit-tool, notice-gen-tool, notice-write-tool). The only scoping cue is "restaurant and brand teams," which is audience framing rather than an invocation condition.

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