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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses the billing model, that charges only confirm on business success, and that violations, timeouts, or generation failures auto-refund in full. It omits return shape and latency expectations, keeping it short of a 5.

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 sentences, no filler, with the output promise front-loaded and the commercial terms immediately after. Every clause carries information an agent or caller needs.

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 4-parameter generation tool with no output schema, it covers the key unknowns: volume of output (3 versions) and billing/refund behavior. It stops short of describing the format of each version (title, body, tags) or length.

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% with enums for tone and platform, so the schema already documents every field. The description only adds the list of target platforms, which partially overlaps the platform enum, and says nothing about brief length or requestId idempotency beyond what the schema states.

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?

Names a specific output (multi-platform marketing copy for 小红书/抖音/公众号) and a concrete quantity (3 versions per call), so an agent knows exactly what it produces. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like translate or script, but the resource is distinct enough to be 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?

Implies usage through the platform list and the 'per call' framing, but never states when to prefer this tool or when not to. The billing/refund sentence is conditional context, not selection guidance.

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