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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: the output is Markdown prompts/acceptance checks and nothing is created or executed, which a name like 'eval' would otherwise imply. It stops short of describing depth/format of the generated checks, but that is partly covered by the output schema.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler: the deliverable and scope come first, the non-goal and sibling routing second. Every clause carries information an agent needs for selection.

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?

Output schema exists, so return-value detail is not required, and annotations cover the read-only/idempotent nature. The only meaningful hole is parameter meaning, which the description does not address; otherwise it is complete for a two-parameter generation tool.

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 0% for two parameters, and the description mentions neither programType nor includeOneShotPrompts. The enum values (referral/affiliate/both) and the boolean's name are partly self-explanatory, but there is no explanation of how programType narrows the generated checks or what 'one-shot prompts' produce, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 and artifact ('Generate Markdown prompts and acceptance checks') plus the exact evaluation scope (starter content, rewards, configuration, frontend installation). It also names two siblings and what they are for, so an agent can separate it from growsurf_program_design_advisor and growsurf_integration_guide without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: use program_design_advisor to pick a design, or integration_guide to plan web integration. It also states a negative boundary in plain terms ('Does not create a program or run the checks'), which prevents mistaking it for growsurf_create_program_resource.

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