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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact — that gateway credentials determine authorization and charges — but says nothing about idempotency, whether the output varies across calls, error behavior, or rate limits.

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, front-loaded and free of padding. The only inefficiency is that the opening line repeats the tool title instead of spending those words explaining what XBogus is.

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?

A signing/utility tool with two required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema needs the description to explain what is returned (a signature string? a signed URL?) and how to use the user_agent consistently with the later request. Neither is covered.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description contributes nothing about how url (which API URL, encoded vs not) or user_agent affect the generated signature, and in fact merely repeats the schema's field names implicitly.

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?

"Generate XBogus" names a specific verb and resource, but XBogus is domain jargon that is never defined, so an agent unfamiliar with TikTok web signing learns the operation's label rather than its purpose. The first line also duplicates the title verbatim, though the name at least distinguishes it from generate_xgnarly and generate_xgnarly_and_xbogus.

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?

No guidance on when to call this versus the closely related siblings generate_xgnarly, generate_xgnarly_and_xbogus, or generate_x_mssdk_info. Nothing says which inputs are required upstream (e.g., whether a URL must be prepared first) or when regeneration is needed.

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