Which demos fit a brief

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses two useful behaviors: the operation is free, and it stores the brief for later copy generation. However, it does not explain return format, whether this is read-only or state-changing, or any side effects beyond storing the brief.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, the free aspect is a single word, and the storage side effect is a compact final sentence. Every sentence contributes meaningful information.

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 simple two-parameter tool, the description covers the core action and one side effect, but it omits the meaning of the language parameter and any guidance on when to invoke it. Since there is no output schema, it also does not describe what the returned reasons look like. It is minimally adequate but leaves clear gaps.

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%, so the description must compensate, but it only clarifies that 'brief' is a business brief. The 'language' parameter is completely unexplained, and there is no guidance on format, allowed values, or optionality beyond the schema's required flag.

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 a specific action: ask the service which demo packages fit a business brief, including a reason for each. It goes beyond the title by naming the resource (demo packages) and the outcome (fit with reasons), which distinguishes it from generic listing tools like sweipe_list_demos.

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 does not explain when to use this tool versus alternatives such as sweipe_brief_generate, sweipe_list_demos, or sweipe_brief_apply. There is no mention of prerequisites, preferred inputs, or exclusion criteria, so an agent has to infer the intended use case.

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