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

Annotations establish it is a non-read-only, non-idempotent write, but the description goes well beyond them: it discloses the 2-credit cost, that a session_id returns immediately while the card fills in about a minute, and that polling design_status is unnecessary. Cost and async-completion behavior are high-value facts structured fields do not carry.

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?

Four dense sentences, each carrying distinct payload: what it produces, the async return behavior, the credit cost, and the next-step hand-off. No filler and the most important framing (chat-to-Metodic hand-off) leads.

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 10-param, no-output-schema creation tool, the description covers the return shape (session_id now, card in ~1 min), the cost, and what to do next — the three things an agent could not infer from the schema or annotations.

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 10 parameters including the goal verbatim-passing and total-across-days duration semantics. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, 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 resource ('turn the conversation into a REAL session... a timed agenda built from the method library, saved and ready to run, edit, share and export') and clearly positions it as the creation step versus siblings like refine_session and design_status.

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?

Explicitly names when not to poll design_status, and prescribes the follow-up path ('after it, offer worksheets/handouts/documents or send the user to their session'). It defines the hand-off moment from chat to Metodic, which is exactly the routing decision an agent needs.

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