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

Annotations already mark the tool readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive; the description reinforces this with 'Does not create a page' and adds useful context that the tool returns questions rather than creating anything. It also notes it is a planning/helper step, adding workflow behavior beyond the annotations. No contradiction exists.

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 compact and front-loaded, starting with 'RECOMMENDED first step' and packing the outcome, alternative tools, call frequency, skip condition, and negative guarantee into a few sentences. It is slightly dense in the parenthetical, but every clause contributes decision-relevant information.

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 read-only planning tool with a full output schema and fully described parameters, this description closes the main workflow gaps: when to call it, what to call next, and when to skip it. Edge cases are not discussed in detail, but annotations cover idempotency and the output schema covers return values.

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 input schema has 100% coverage: all 7 optional parameters include descriptive text. The description's mentions of business name, primary visitor action, key content, and optional source link mirror schema fields without adding new constraints or formats, so the schema carries the parameter-semantics burden.

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 names a concrete action ('start landing page intake'), states what it returns ('few questions worth asking'), and explicitly differentiates from siblings: it says to 'then call page_create_from_brief' and notes page_onboarding_* tools are 'stateless planning helper, not required.' It also ends with 'Does not create a page,' which removes ambiguity about its role.

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?

Usage is spelled out directly: 'RECOMMENDED first step for building a page,' 'prefer it,' 'Call once per creation request; skip if the user already gave you a source URL.' It also names the downstream tool to call and contrasts with page_onboarding_* as optional alternatives, giving an agent clear when/why guidance.

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