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

No annotations, so description carries full burden. It discloses the side effect that brand_hash creates one idea first, which is useful. However, it omits whether generation is idempotent, permission requirements, or handling of conflicting inputs.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the main action. No redundant text; the optional parameter note is appended efficiently.

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 tool with no annotations, an output schema, and zero parameter descriptions, the description is minimal but covers the essential invocation paths. It leaves gaps about input requirements and behavioral edge cases, but is adequate for a basic generation call.

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 0%, so description must compensate. It names all three parameters and gives the range for promotion_rating (0-10). It implies you need either idea_hash or brand_hash, but doesn't explain hash formats or what happens if both are provided.

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 'Generate' and resource 'script', distinguishing from siblings like generate_idea and get_script. Clarifies two input paths (idea_hash or brand_hash) and the side effect of creating an idea first. Lacks explicit sibling routing but implicit differentiation is clear.

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?

Indicates two ways to invoke (from idea_hash or brand_hash) but doesn't say when to choose one over the other, nor when to prefer this over get_script or generate_idea. Implied usage only.

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