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

Annotations mark this as a non-readOnly, non-idempotent mutation, and the description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: it consumes allowance units and that request_id must be held constant across retries to avoid double-charging. It does not say whether a failed generation refunds units, so a small gap remains.

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 action, then the prerequisite, then cost and retry guidance. Nothing is redundant with the title or schema.

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 paid, mutating generator with no output schema, the description covers the prerequisite, cost model and retry semantics, which is most of what an agent needs. It omits what the returned prompt looks like and any failure/refund behavior.

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 already high at 83%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds real meaning by mapping the scope enum values to allowance cost (1 vs 3 units). guest_token is undocumented in both schema and description, keeping it short of 5.

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 concrete verb and resource: it prepares a coding-agent prompt from an owned report, which is clearly distinct from audit/report siblings. It does not explicitly name the adjacent tool (prompt_allowance is only cited as a prerequisite read), so sibling differentiation is implied rather than spelled out.

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?

'Read prompt_allowance first' gives an explicit prerequisite, and the per-scope unit costs (check = 1, full = 3) tell the agent which variant to pick under a budget. No explicit when-not-to-use condition, but the operating context is clear.

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