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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses important billing behavior: per-use charge, confirmation only on success, and automatic full refund on content violation, model timeout, or generation failure. It does not mention authentication, rate limits, or output format details, but the billing and failure semantics are a strong addition.

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 wasted words. The primary function is front-loaded, followed by critical billing context. Every sentence 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?

For a tool with a clear schema and no output schema, the description covers purpose, output expectations, and billing behavior. It could be slightly more complete by explaining what 'risk hints' entail or the expected structure of the bilingual message, but it is sufficient for an agent to call 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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters including the style enum and idempotency key. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what is in the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 (Conventional Commits commit message) with clear input (paste diff) and output (bilingual message + risk hints). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like translate or codegen, which don't focus on Git commit messages.

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 usage by specifying 'paste diff,' but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., translate or codegen) or when not to use it. No exclusions or alternative routing are provided.

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