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

Annotations declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description explains the mechanism behind that: re-creating the same path yields status already_exists rather than a duplicate, with the existing siteId. It also discloses draft semantics (nothing live until publish_pages/publish_site), the full status enum including limit_reached and failed reasons, per-plan daily quotas with UTC reset and non-restoring deletions, and brand_mismatch behavior for expectedBrandId. All consistent with annotations.

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 the when-to-use condition, then mutation semantics, then exhaustion routing, then limits — a sensible order and mostly high-signal. Minor waste in the bilingual quoted examples and the keyword parenthetical "(ホームページ, Webサイト, ランディングページ)", which read as search bait rather than agent guidance.

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 5-parameter creation tool with annotations and a full output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what is created, that it is a draft, duplicate handling, failure statuses, quota limits, and where to go for previews or bulk creation. Return-value shape is correctly left to the output schema.

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%, so the baseline is 3; the description goes beyond it by explaining 'the HTML as its first saved version' (constraining what html means relative to later edits) and by restating the expectedBrandId guard-rail semantics. It does not add syntax-level detail for path/locale, but the schema already carries that.

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?

States a specific verb+resource+scope: "Creates the page at path on the workspace's site, with the HTML as its first saved version." It also distinguishes itself from near-siblings by naming create_pages (many at once), create_landing_page_preview, create_preview, and save_page_content.

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 this tool when making one page of the workspace's site at a known path" gives an explicit trigger condition, and the final paragraph enumerates the alternatives with the conditions that select them (many pages → create_pages; goals+preview in one call → create_landing_page_preview; change HTML later → save_page_content). Nothing is left to inference.

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