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

Annotations are all false and provide no safety signal, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses many behaviors: previews are customer-facing, planning fields must not become public copy, sparse briefs must not be padded with invented facts, missing CTA destinations require either asking or fallbackLeadForm, anonymous pages expire unless claimed, and the draft seeds starter blocks that are pruned if empty.

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 long but front-loaded with the core purpose and organized into distinct behavioral and workflow concerns. It is dense rather than padded, though some warnings overlap with schema-level field descriptions, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 29-parameter, nested-object tool with an output schema and no meaningful annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It covers creation constraints, public-copy guardrails, CTA fallback behavior, page expiration, next steps, and the post-call workflow, so an agent has enough context to invoke it correctly.

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 high at 83%, so the schema already documents individual parameters. The description adds meaningful cross-parameter semantics by grouping fields into planning-context versus final-audience publicSections, and by explaining that public contact fields must come from user-supplied or public sources. It does not enumerate every parameter, but the high-level grouping is valuable.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'creates a hosted landing page draft from a structured brief.' It also clearly distinguishes this tool from nearby siblings by stating it is draft-only, steers vague requests toward page_onboarding_start, and notes page_preview is unnecessary.

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 gives explicit when/when-not guidance: prefer page_onboarding_start for vague first-page requests, pass onboardingMainCategory otherwise, do not call page_publish in the same turn unless the user explicitly asks to publish, and use the returned previewUrl directly instead of page_preview. This makes tool selection actionable.

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