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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds meaningful behavioral context (claimed plans return original recovery references, submitted tasks are not canceled), but doesn't explain side effects, what 'deny' actually changes, or what the response looks like.

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 short sentences with no fluff. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides important caveats. Every part earns its place.

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 simple one-parameter tool, it covers purpose and behavior boundaries, but leaves confirm_token unexplained and uses domain jargon (claimed plans, recovery references) without definition. Adequate but not fully self-contained.

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 0%, and the description never explains confirm_token—what it is, where it comes from, or its format. The parameter name implies a confirmation token, but no additional meaning is provided.

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 description clearly states the specific action (deny), the resource (an unclaimed TikTok copy plan), and distinguishes it from siblings by noting the unclaimed scope and the fact that it does not cancel submitted tasks.

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?

It implies when to use the tool (for unclaimed plans) and provides a boundary for claimed plans and submitted tasks. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools for those cases, leaving some room for inference.

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