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

Annotations declare a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive mutation but say nothing about cost or retry behavior. The description adds real value beyond that: check consumes one unit, full consumes three, and request_id must be preserved across retries. It stops short of describing what the generated prompt looks like or how long generation takes.

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?

Five short sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose and then add prerequisite, cost, and retry facts in order of need. The second sentence ('Prepare a coding-agent prompt from an owned report...') overlaps somewhat with the first, but each remaining sentence contributes a distinct constraint.

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 9-parameter generator with no output schema, the description covers purpose, prerequisite, source selection, quota cost, and retry handling. It does not explain the relationship between 'source' and the conditional 'check_id'/'report_id' requirements, but the schema descriptions do cover those conditions.

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 89%, so the schema carries most parameter meaning. The description still adds non-schema semantics: the unit cost of each 'scope' value (check=1, full=3) and the retry contract for 'request_id', which the schema only states as a format constraint.

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+resource ('Generate a fix prompt') and scopes it to two concrete sources: a weekly finding or a Search Console opportunity. This distinguishes it from the generic generate_fix_prompt and from generate_domain_fix_prompt even without naming them directly.

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?

Gives an explicit prerequisite ('Read prompt_allowance first') and a hard constraint ('within the free allowance or active plan'), which tells the agent when the call will succeed. It does not, however, contrast itself against the sibling generate_fix_prompt or generate_domain_fix_prompt, so the agent must infer which generator to pick.

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