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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: it returns 'at most one round of questions', is call-limited to once per request, and explicitly 'Does not create a page', clarifying the side-effect-free nature.

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 primary purpose, then progressively adds return behavior, skip conditions, and constraints. Slightly dense but each sentence carries distinct information; no filler.

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 an output schema present and rich annotations, the description need not explain return values yet still describes their shape ('one round of questions'). Combined with clear usage routing and a no-side-effect statement, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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%, so the schema carries the parameters and a baseline of 3 applies. The description adds meaning by enumerating the intake content (name, main visitor action and its destination, must-have facts) which maps onto businessName, primaryGoal, and the destination concept, giving the agent a sense of what inputs it should already have.

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 function: an optional intake step that returns at most one round of clarifying questions for a vague page request. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by naming page_create_from_brief (the actual creation path) and source_import (the link-reading path).

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?

Explicit when-to-use (vague request lacking name/action destination), when-to-skip with a named alternative ('call page_create_from_brief directly'), and an alternative handling path for public links ('read it yourself or use source_import'). Also constrains frequency ('Call at most once per request').

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