generate_aeo_content_suite

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well: it discloses the async behavior (returns in seconds with orderId), typical completion time (5-25+ min), polling interval (15-30s), authentication requirement (AGENTAEO_API_KEY), and admin bypass conditions. It doesn't mention error handling or rate limits, but covers key operational traits.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: async behavior, polling instructions, authentication, and admin bypass details. It could be slightly more structured but avoids 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?

Given the complexity (async operation with polling) and no annotations/output schema, the description is mostly complete: it covers purpose, usage, behavior, and parameter context. It lacks details on error responses or output format, but provides enough for an agent to use the tool effectively with the schema.

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 adds some context: it clarifies that orderId comes from 'aeo_content_orders after $499 payment' and that adminContentBypass requires 'allowlisted key + X-AgentAEO-Admin-Content', but doesn't provide additional meaning beyond what's in the schema for auditId or packageType.

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 purpose: 'Start Content Suite generation (HTML + JSON-LD + llms.txt) for a completed audit.' It specifies the exact output format and the required input condition (completed audit), and distinguishes it from siblings by mentioning the async nature and the need to poll check_aeo_content_suite_status.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives: it mentions using adminContentBypass for admin QA without Cashfree, otherwise requiring orderId after payment. It also specifies the polling mechanism with check_aeo_content_suite_status and distinguishes from run_aeo_audit by focusing on content generation post-audit.

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