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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the 'ready to ship' framing and the per-call constraint; it never explains that output is returned as text rather than persisted, which is the non-obvious trait for a 'generate' tool.

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 tight sentences with the artifact list front-loaded and the usage constraint last. Nearly every clause carries information; the enum values are echoed, which is the only mild redundancy.

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?

With only two required params, full schema coverage and annotations covering behavior, the description is sufficient to call the tool. It stops short of explaining output format or size/limits for the generated artifacts, which the absence of an output schema leaves unaddressed.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema, including the mapping of input type to artifact. The description's restatement ('llms_txt and faq_schema for a site ... for a topic') is largely redundant with the schema's own input description, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a concrete verb ('Produce') and enumerates the exact artifacts the tool emits (llms_txt, faq_schema, content_brief, prompt_set, semantic_keywords), which lets an agent match the enum to real outputs. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling tools, but the read-oriented siblings (audit_site, my_visibility) are clearly a different category.

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?

'One call per thing' is a genuine invocation guideline that tells the agent not to batch multiple artifacts into a single call. However, there is no guidance on when to prefer this tool over the sibling audits, no prerequisites, and no exclusions.

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