Product copy

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

Annotations indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) that is not idempotent and not destructive, and is openWorld. The description adds the credit cost from the wallet, which is useful for budgeting. However, it doesn't detail other behavioral aspects like credit consumption per call or whether it modifies any state, though the openWorld hint already signals potential external effects.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core value proposition, then mentions the cost in a single additional sentence. It avoids fluff and is easy to scan.

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 presence of a nested object and an enum, the description covers the main inputs and outputs but omits details like the exact structure of the output (e.g., how many bullets or titles), any formatting constraints, or credit cost amount. It is adequate for a deployable tool but leaves some gaps that could affect 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?

The description mentions 'specs and an audience' and 'per channel', which aligns with the product object and channel parameter, but it doesn't add meaning beyond what the schema provides. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description already covers the key conceptual parameters but doesn't explain nuances like the 'keywords' field or the required 'name', making 3 a reasonable baseline.

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 states a clear verb ('generate') and resource ('product copy') with specific output types (titles, bullets, description, SEO keywords) and the audience requirement. It is distinct from siblings which mostly focus on parsing or analysis rather than copy generation, though it doesn't explicitly name an alternative.

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 usage through the input requirements (specs and audience) and channel options, and notes the cost implication. However, it does not state when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., parserail_rewrite for rewriting existing copy) or when not to use it, lacking explicit exclusions.

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