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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description still adds meaningful behavior: the no-scenario path returns option lists, and the output follows etiquette conventions rather than legal requirements, which sets expectations about content and tone.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by the discovery fallback. Nothing is wasted, though the etiquette/legal caveat is slightly tangential to the core call mechanics.

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 an 11-parameter, zero-required, read-only composition tool with no output schema, the description covers the main use and the fallback mode adequately. It could say more about which parameters matter for which scenarios, but nothing critical is missing for a correct invocation.

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 all 11 parameters are already documented in the schema. The description references names, event details and reception wording generically, adding little beyond the field-level docs, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('composes') and resource ('wedding invitation text') and scopes it to a hosting situation and formality. No sibling tool competes for this function, and an agent can distinguish it immediately from the other get_*/list_* utilities.

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 notes that omitting a scenario lists available options, which is a useful discovery hint, but it never states when to reach for this tool versus, say, get_dress_code_guide or other planning helpers, nor any prerequisite (e.g. names needed for certain scenarios). Usage is implied rather than prescribed.

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