Generate Marketing Materials

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, already signaling safe read operations. Description adds valuable behavioral context: requires open project, each call regenerates fresh output (non-idempotent, matching idempotentHint=false). No contradictions. Slight deduction for not explaining why readOnlyHint is appropriate for a generative action.

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 concise sentences. First sentence defines purpose with specific artifact list. Second provides usage guidance. Third adds prerequisite. Fourth notes non-idempotency. No wasted words, information dense.

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 3 parameters, no output schema, and informative annotations, the description covers all necessary context: what it generates, usage domain, prerequisite, behavioral trait. Return value is clearly specified as 'generated text'. Provides complete decision support for an agent.

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 coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for all three parameters (materialType, length, targetAudience). The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 generates publishing/marketing artifacts (synopsis, query letter, etc.) from a manuscript, and distinguishes it from compile_documents for assembling the manuscript. The verb 'generate' and specific artifact list provide excellent purpose clarity.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: for submission and pitching materials. Identifies alternative: compile_documents for manuscript assembly. No ambiguity about usage context.

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