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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds nothing beyond confirming it produces text. It omits any behavioral detail on the mode tiers, whether generation is deterministic, or external dependencies implied by openWorldHint; with an output schema present the return-value gap is acceptable, but the mode behavior gap is not.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb and the format tailoring come first. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly the cause of the missing guidance rather than a virtue of tight writing.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, but for a 4-parameter tool with two enums and a sibling that overlaps in purpose, the description leaves agent-critical decisions (mode selection, sibling choice, target_platform meaning) unaddressed.

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 only 25%, so the description must compensate. It does enumerate the format enum values (image, video, code, productivity), which is useful, but it says nothing about mode (quick/advanced/ultimate) or target_platform, leaving two of four parameters functionally opaque.

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 (generates) and resource (prompt) and narrows it to a raw topic tailored to a format, which is more than a restatement of the name. However it does not differentiate itself from the sibling optimizePrompt, so an agent must infer the boundary between generating a new prompt and optimizing an existing one.

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?

No when-to-use guidance and no alternatives named. The description never explains when to pick generatePrompt over optimizePrompt, nor what the quick/advanced/ultimate modes mean or when to choose each.

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