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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety burden is largely carried. The description adds the meaningful clarification that this is a planning/advisory tool producing Markdown rather than performing inspection or mutation, which sharpens the agent's mental model beyond the flags.

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?

Three tightly written sentences with zero filler; purpose and output are front-loaded, the negative scope comes second, and the sibling routing closes it out. Nothing repeats.

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?

Safety is covered by annotations and return shape by the output schema, so those needn't be in prose. The remaining gap is the five parameters, four of which are undocumented in both schema and description — adequate overall but not fully complete for a tool with this many inputs.

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 only 20% (just webhookSecurity), and the description says nothing about the five inputs — programType, singlePageApp, referralTrigger, participantAuthEnabled are left entirely to bare enum names and defaults. The description does not compensate for the coverage gap, so an agent gets little help interpreting or selecting these parameters.

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 ('Plan a web integration for a referral or affiliate program') and goes on to name the concrete outputs (Markdown steps for Universal Code, participant identification, referral/sale tracking, webhook verification). It also explicitly scopes what the tool is not ('Does not inspect or change a program'), letting an agent separate it from the many mutating siblings.

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 to alternatives by condition: `growsurf_client_snippets` for browser JavaScript, `growsurf_api_library_snippets` for backend code, `growsurf_mobile_sdk_guide` for native/React Native. This is exactly the when-to-use-a-sibling guidance most definitions omit.

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