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

Annotations already declare the mutation/idempotency/safety profile, so the bar is lower. The description does add genuinely new information the annotations lack — a fixed $0.15 per-call cost — plus a grounding claim ('real experience'), but it omits length limits, output shape, and any auth/quota requirements.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and the price is stated plainly. The closing 'specific letter instead of a generic template' is mild marketing padding rather than operational information.

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 and no annotations describing returns, the description should indicate what comes back (format, rough length, structure). It covers cost and input intent but leaves the agent guessing about the deliverable, which is a meaningful gap for a generation tool.

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?

Both required parameters (cv, job_description) have 0% schema description coverage, so the description must carry their semantics and does not — it never mentions them by name, nor their format, size, or whether cv is raw text or structured. 'Grounded in the candidate's real experience' only vaguely gestures at the cv input.

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?

The verb-plus-resource is specific: 'Draft a cover letter' scoped to 'the candidate's real experience' clearly separates it from siblings like fikra_tailor_cv or fikra_generate_job_description. It stops short of explicitly naming the nearest alternative, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

The description implies the usage context (a candidate with a CV applying to a job) but never states when to choose this over fikra_tailor_cv or fikra_generate_customer_response, nor any exclusions. 'A specific letter instead of a generic template' is a selling point, not routing guidance.

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