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 still adds real value by negating side effects ("Does not install code or change a program") and by disclosing the output form (Markdown) and that placement guidance is included. It does not describe pagination or output length, but this is a generator tool where that matters little.

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, both front-loaded: the capability first, then the explicit sibling routing. No filler, no repetition of the title, and every clause carries selection-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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers what the tool produces, what it deliberately does not do, and how it differs from its neighbors. The one gap is that the 8 optional configuration parameters are left entirely to the 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 description coverage is 0% across 8 parameters, so the description is the only place parameter meaning could be conveyed, and it says nothing about programType, singlePageApp, referralTrigger, or the various include* toggles. Two enums are self-explanatory and the boolean names are semi-descriptive, which keeps this above a 1, but the description does no compensating work 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 resource (generate Markdown browser JavaScript and CSS examples) and enumerates the covered domains: referral tracking, embeddable elements, and the GrowSurf Window. It also names the three sibling snippet tools it is not, so an agent can distinguish it 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?

Explicit routing: use growsurf_embeddable_element_snippet for a single HTML element, growsurf_grsf_config_snippet for window.grsfConfig, and growsurf_api_library_snippets for backend REST code. Each alternative is paired with the condition that selects it, leaving nothing to inference.

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