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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, but the description adds real context beyond them: the prior version is preserved for comparison and revert, the live post stays unchanged until publish, and the run is synchronous under the acting user's identity. Missing only cost/credit or rate-limit disclosure for a tool that clearly consumes model work.

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 tight sentences, purpose front-loaded, each carrying distinct information (what is rewritten, what is preserved, when it takes effect, who it runs as). Zero filler.

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?

With annotations covering the mutation profile and an output schema covering return values, the description supplies the remaining essentials: partial rewrite scope, rollback path, and synchronous execution. Slightly short of complete only because it says nothing about cost, duration, or whether repeated calls compound.

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 100%, so both parameters are fully documented in structured form, and the description adds only oblique meaning ('using what people searched for') about how the piece is rewritten. No parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and scope: 'Rewrite only the sections of an article that have gone stale,' which signals partial, targeted mutation rather than regeneration. That implicitly distinguishes it from generateArticle and publishArticle, but no sibling is named explicitly, so the differentiation must be inferred.

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 trigger condition (sections 'gone stale') is stated, and the schema ties pieceId to readDecaying, implying the read-then-refresh workflow. But the description never says when to choose this over generateArticle or when not to run it, and no prerequisites or alternatives are spelled out.

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