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

Annotations already cover the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive safety profile, but the description adds real behavioral context: redaction (hidden, blurred and personal data never appears), a 1568 px scaling cap, and the required `demos:read` scope. It stops short of describing pagination or response envelope, so not a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with what the agent gets, then the outline/units detail, then a terse scope requirement. Dense but every sentence carries information; only minor tightening is possible.

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 output schema, the description carries the full burden and discharges it: it enumerates return fields, coordinate units, HTML-only outline behavior, redaction guarantees, and auth requirements. An agent can call this correctly without further inference.

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% and the schema already documents both `demoId` (from list_demos) and `screenId` (from get_demo → screens) with patterns. The description adds no further parameter semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 precisely characterizes the payload: a screenshot (blurred/edited, capped at 1568 px), readable text with positions, and an `outline` of elements for HTML screens. That is enough to tell it apart from get_demo (metadata/screen list), though the phrasing is a noun phrase about output rather than an explicit verb+resource statement.

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?

Use is implied rather than stated: it explains that rects share units with a tooltip step's `spot` and a hotspot's `rect`, hinting at the 'point a step at an element' use case. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or a named alternative among the many siblings (get_demo, get_guide, get_video).

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