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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely non-derivable context — ~15-30s latency, ~0.5 Metodic credit cost, and the fact that the artifact is both returned in chat and persisted to the session. It stops short of explaining what happens on regeneration of an existing handout.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the core distinction from a worksheet appears in the first two sentences and the operational facts (activity number, kind, latency, credit) are batched at the end. Slightly padded by 'using Metodic's real generator', which carries no selection value.

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 no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so ('branded HTML artifact in the chat, also saved to the session'). Cost, latency, required inputs, and sibling disambiguation are all present; nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a little beyond the schema: it notes activity is 1-based and that `kind` is optional, and its framing-activity remark implicitly widens the valid range of the `activity` parameter beyond the narrative agenda.

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 artifact ('Generate a participant HANDOUT... return it as a branded HTML artifact') and explicitly distinguishes the output from the sibling generate_worksheet ('Unlike a worksheet (which participants fill in), a handout is READING/REFERENCE material'). An agent can route correctly without opening either schema.

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?

Gives the condition that selects this tool over the worksheet sibling and enumerates the acceptable content types (background, framework, case study, persona, checklist). It even resolves an edge case an agent would likely get wrong: framing activities (Opening/Closing) can have handouts too.

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