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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does address the most important misconception — no image is produced, only text is returned, and a specific model performs the work. However, it says nothing about whether this consumes credits (relevant given the sibling antix_get_credits), latency, or any failure/limits behavior, which matters for a 9-parameter remote model call.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does, then the negative clarification, then the usage pointer, then the mode instruction. No filler. Slightly penalized only because the mode sentence sits at the end where the schema-adjacent guidance would be more useful earlier.

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 tool with 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description explains roughly one parameter and no return shape. An agent knows what the tool is for but not how the model/quality/duration/referenceTypes inputs affect the enhancement, nor what the enhanced text looks like coming back, so it would likely call with only a prompt and mode and miss the tool's real capability.

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 0% across 9 parameters, so the description must compensate and it largely does not. Only 'mode' is explained ('image' for visual prompts, 'video' for motion prompts); model, quality, audio, duration, resolution, aspectRatio, and referenceTypes are left entirely to bare enum lists with no guidance on how they interact with mode or why an enhancement call would accept generation-style options.

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 and resource ('expand a brief prompt into a richer, model-optimized description') and names the underlying engine (Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the generation siblings with 'Doesn't generate an image — just improves the text,' so an agent can tell it apart from antix_generate_image without opening any schema.

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 clear positive placement: 'Useful before calling antix_generate_image or antix_generate_video for higher-quality results,' which is exactly the routing decision an agent needs. It also says which mode value maps to which downstream tool. It stops short of a when-not-to-use case (e.g. when the prompt is already detailed, or cost considerations), so it is a strong 4 rather than a 5.

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