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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: automations are created/edited in the web app, and run-automation-tool only ever starts an extra run for tiktok_warmup, which tells the agent this tool is purely observational.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and reasonably tight, but the tiktok_warmup paragraph (niche, keywords, comment language, daily window, session counts) is detail-heavy for a listing tool and pushes length beyond what an agent needs to select the tool.

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 carries the burden of describing returns and does so: the two kinds, their differentiating fields, and the absence of `schedule_cron` for warm-ups. Nothing needed to call or interpret this tool is missing.

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?

Zero input parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description also explains the named fields an automation carries (`prompt`, `schedule_cron`, `timezone`, `settings`), which is useful even though they are output rather than input fields.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('List the authenticated user's automations') and immediately defines the domain object so the agent understands what an 'automation' is. It further distinguishes the two `kind` variants, making the scope unambiguous against 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?

Explicitly names alternatives and contrasts them ('Not the same as macros (list-macros-tool), which replay recorded input exactly with no AI'), and routes follow-up work to list-automation-runs-tool and get-automation-run-tool. When-to-use and sibling differentiation are both stated.

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