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

Goes well past the annotations: discloses ~15-20s latency, ~0.5 Metodic credit per call, free re-fetch when a worksheet already exists, that output is a branded document returned in chat and saved to the session for the PDF, and 'do NOT author these yourself'. This is a mutation (readOnlyHint=false) so the cost/side-effect disclosure is the important part, and it is present.

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 purpose and the sibling routing come first, then cost/latency mechanics, then the framing-activity caveat. Each sentence carries information, though the description is long enough that a reader must parse several distinct clauses.

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 still explains what comes back (a branded document in chat, persisted to the session) and covers side effects, cost, latency, and the no-worksheet edge case. 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, but the description adds real meaning: 'activity' is 1-based from the agenda and should be incremented per activity, and 'regenerate' should only be set when a new version is explicitly wanted. It stops short of restating parameter syntax, which the schema already covers.

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 — 'Generate the A4 PARTICIPANT WORKSHEET for ONE activity' — and immediately contrasts it with the sibling generate_canvas ('NOT the big sheet on the wall'). An agent can distinguish this from every other generate_* sibling without opening a 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?

Explicit routing: a concrete keyword list (canvas, wall canvas, poster, brownpaper, large format, A1, A0, matrix, mapping wall) sends the caller to generate_canvas, and it explains the multi-call pattern ('call this once per activity (1, then 2, …)') plus the exclusion ('Framing activities have no worksheet').

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