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

Annotations already mark the tool readOnly and non-destructive; the description adds that the response contains each simulated person's reaction, objections, and suggested help, plus a report link when a key is present. This is useful post-condition context beyond the annotations, though it doesn't discuss non-determinism or timeout behavior.

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 with no filler; the core behavior is front-loaded and the parentheses compactly illustrate supported text types. 'With a key' is slightly vague, but the overall structure is tight and scannable.

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?

The description covers what the tool does, what to pass, and what comes back, which is sufficient given there is no output schema. It does not explain timeout_seconds or explicitly route among sibling tools, so it is helpful but not exhaustive.

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 80%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the meaning of goal ('Pass goal to say what the text should achieve') and references the text input, but adds no information about count, audience, or timeout_seconds beyond what the schema already provides.

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 opens with a concrete verb ('Show') and a specific resource ('any text' with examples) plus the purpose ('hear how they react'), so an agent knows exactly what the tool does. It is broadly distinguishable from page/component/flow siblings, though it does not explicitly contrast with the closely-named test_copy or compare_copy.

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 description implies this is the tool for evaluating any text with simulated people and instructs the agent to pass a goal for what the text should achieve. However, it never states when to prefer this over siblings like test_copy or compare_copy, nor does it give any exclusion criteria.

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