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

With annotations declaring readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond them: the auto-approval behavior and the branch to draft status. It doesn't quantify cost, latency, or rate limits, so it falls just short of full transparency.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, followed by prerequisite and outcome branches, and every sentence carries information. It is slightly dense with the auto-mode explanation but no sentence is wasted.

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 adequately covers the inputs, the prerequisite, and the resulting state (auto-approved vs draft). It doesn't describe return payloads, but the workflow context is sufficient to call the tool correctly.

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 both parameters (brandId, goals) are already documented. The description reinforces that goals drive the strategy but adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema, 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 ("Generates") plus the resource and its contents ("organic-first marketing strategy (channel mix, content pillars, posting cadence)") and the source input ("from the brand's goals"). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like generate_brand_guide and generate_campaign.

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?

Names the prerequisite explicitly ("Requires an approved brand guide first") and splits the outcome into two cases: a confident-scan brand that auto-approves and readies generate_campaign, versus a thin-scan brand that lands as a draft needing approve_strategy. This tells the agent both when it can proceed and which sibling to call next.

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