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

Annotations already confirm this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world operation, but the description adds valuable context beyond them. It explains that the tool returns exact structure rules and why they matter: they decide whether the site converts into a clean editable CMS with named fields and add/remove collections, or a wall of generic 'Text' fields.

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 front-loaded with the critical call to action and then efficiently explains what the tool returns and why it is important. Every sentence earns its place, with no filler or 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?

With no parameters, no output schema, and annotations already covering safety and idempotency, the description is complete enough for an agent to know exactly what the tool provides. It explicitly describes the return content as exact structure rules and details their impact on CMS conversion.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain, which matches the baseline score of 4. The description reinforces this by explicitly saying 'no arguments'.

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 specific verb and resource: it returns yetty's exact structure rules for authoring HTML. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like yetty_login or yetty_batch_start by being a prerequisite guide with no account or arguments required.

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 opening imperative 'READ THIS BEFORE WRITING OR SENDING ANY HTML' gives explicit timing and context for use. It further removes friction by noting no account is needed, it is free and instant, and takes no arguments.

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