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

Annotations only cover the safety profile (not read-only, not idempotent, not destructive, not open-world). The description adds genuinely new traits: ~20-30s latency, ~0.5 Metodic credit cost, output returned as a branded HTML artifact and persisted to the session's Documents, plus the instruction not to author the document manually.

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?

The exclusion is front-loaded, which is the right ordering. However, the document-type enumeration appears twice (once as 'a pre-read, a briefing, a client brief, prep notes...' and again as 'participant PRE-READ or BRIEFING... CLIENT BRIEF... follow-up summary'), which is redundant bulk.

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 6-parameter, non-idempotent generation tool with no output schema, the description covers the return shape (branded HTML artifact), persistence behavior, cost, latency, and the sibling it redirects to. Nothing essential is missing.

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 every parameter (including the tricky 'force' redirect and the audience enum) is already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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+resource (generate a written document via Metodic's real document builder) and explicitly names the sibling it is not (answer_from_library). An agent can distinguish it from generate_handout/generate_slides/generate_worksheet by the 'own audience, branded document' framing.

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?

Opens with a hard exclusion ('NOT for a list of sources, methods, formats or reading'), names the alternative and its behavior, then enumerates positive use cases (pre-read, briefing, client brief, prep notes, invitation, follow-up, fill-in template). Explicit when-to-use, when-not, and alternative.

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