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

Annotations already declare the mutation/side-effect profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false). The description goes beyond that by disclosing the conditional approval behavior (auto-approved on confident scan vs draft on thin-scan) and the prerequisite dependency, which an agent cannot infer from the annotations alone.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action and its output, then the prerequisite, then the auto-mode behavior. No redundant restatement of the title or name.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description conveys the resulting state (approved strategy vs draft) and the downstream tool. Combined with the prerequisite and approval flow, it covers everything an agent needs to invoke this 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% and both parameters (brandId, goals) are well documented in the schema itself, so the baseline is 3. The description only echoes 'from the brand's goals' without adding format or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides.

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?

Names a specific verb (generates) and resource (organic-first marketing strategy) and enumerates its outputs — channel mix, content pillars, posting cadence — derived from the brand's goals. It clearly distinguishes itself from generate_brand_guide, generate_campaign, and approve_strategy by describing where it sits in the pipeline.

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?

Explicitly states the prerequisite ('Requires an approved brand guide first'), describes the auto-approval path, and names the conditions under which a draft requiring approve_strategy results. It also routes the agent forward to generate_campaign once ready, so when-to-use and downstream sequencing are both covered.

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