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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=true, openWorld=true), and the description adds the non-obvious cost model and the fact that already-adapted audiences are skipped. That is meaningful context beyond the structured fields, though there's no mention of failure modes or what happens on partial credit exhaustion.

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?

Two sentences, no waste, with the resource purpose front-loaded before the cost constraint. Every clause carries 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?

For a two-parameter generation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, cost, and idempotent behavior adequately. It could say more about the shape of the returned risk scores, but the essentials for a correct call are present.

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 50%; confirm_spend is documented in the schema as the credit-spend confirmation, while project_id is only implied by 'in a project'. The description adds no format or scoping detail for project_id, so it neither compensates for the gap nor repeats what the schema already says.

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 ('Write culturally adapted ad copy with risk scores') scoped to 'every audience in a project', which clearly distinguishes it from list_adaptations and review_adaptation. An agent can identify it as the generation action among siblings.

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 phrasing 'for every audience in a project' plus the cost note 'Spends 1 Kulture credit per audience not yet adapted' tells the agent when this is the right call and what it costs. It doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives (e.g., single-audience paths or review_adaptation), so not a full 5.

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