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

The description goes far beyond annotations by revealing asynchronous behavior: 'starts generating every asset in the background,' 'Returns immediately,' and 'Production takes several minutes — poll comic_status.' It also discloses the output (story summary, reader_url) and the need for polling. No contradiction with annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false).

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?

The description is four sentences, front-loaded with the main verb and resource, and every sentence adds unique value: scope, background generation, immediate return, and follow-up polling. No fluff or redundancy.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description gives a complete picture of the tool's behavior and result: what is created, what is returned, how long it takes, and how to check status. It even mentions details like '~13 panels of art with character consistency' and 'per-line voice-over,' making it fully self-contained for a complex creation tool.

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 100% for the single parameter 'premise,' and the schema already explains it as 'The story premise, one paragraph is plenty.' The description only repeats 'one-paragraph premise' without adding new meaning about parameter formatting or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles the semantics.

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 tool's function: 'Write and produce a Living Panels interactive comic from a one-paragraph premise.' It details the full scope (5-page comic, panels, dialogue, motion, voice casting) and distinguishes it from lower-level tools in the sibling list (e.g., cast_character, generate_scene_frame) by emphasizing it's a single all-in-one call.

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 description implies when to use the tool (for creating a full comic from a premise) and provides a workflow ('Returns immediately... poll comic_status until ready... share the reader_url'). However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like comic_revision_brief or comic_design_brief, so it lacks a clear 'when-not-to-use' statement.

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