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

Annotations already disclose this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world operation, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real behavior: the page is created empty and no agent is involved, telling the agent this is a blank scaffold it must fill itself rather than a generative call. It omits what is returned (page id/handle) or any failure/idempotency behavior.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, with the parameter note placed last. No redundant restatement of the tool name or 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?

For a simple creation tool with no output schema and annotations covering the safety profile, the core is covered. Gaps remain around the mandatory `title` argument and what handle the agent receives back to feed into landing_write_page, which an agent would have to discover from sibling tools.

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 2 parameters, so the description has to compensate and only partly does: it explains `request` well as the person's verbatim ask. The required `title` parameter is never mentioned, leaving the one mandatory field documented nowhere, though its meaning is largely self-evident from the name.

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+resource ("Make an empty landing page") plus the account context, which separates it from sibling starters like start_deck and start_ads by naming the landing product area. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with those siblings, but the resource noun does the disambiguation work.

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?

The parenthetical "designed with the landing tools (no Deckly agent involved)" implies the follow-on workflow, so an agent can infer this is the entry point before landing_write_page/landing_edit_page. There is no explicit when-to-use versus start_deck/start_ads statement and no prerequisites, so guidance is implied rather than stated.

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