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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context by stating it 'returns instructions and provides examples' and emphasizes the need to follow installation guidance first, which helps prevent misuse. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

The description is two sentences. The first clearly states the tool's purpose and gives a comprehensive list of examples; the second provides a concise, actionable prerequisite. Every part serves a purpose, and the length is justified for the breadth of the tool's coverage.

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?

The tool has a complex domain (many UI scenarios) and an output schema. The description covers the purpose, the scope of examples, and key usage instructions, which is sufficient for an agent to decide when to invoke it and what to pass. It does not describe the exact return structure, but the presence of an output schema reduces that burden.

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%, but the parameters use descriptive enums (e.g., guidance lists many specific tasks, framework lists JS/React/Next.js variants), which carry much of the meaning. The description adds value by highlighting 'Installation' and 'LOGIN_AND_SIGNUP_INSTALLATION' as key guidance values, but it does not explain the framework parameter or enumerate all guidance options beyond what the schema provides.

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 clearly states the tool 'returns instructions and provides examples for using PropelAuth's frontend APIs to create custom UIs to replace PropelAuth's hosted pages.' This uses a specific verb (returns/provides) and resource (custom UI guidance), and is distinct from sibling tools like integrate_propelauth_frontend which handle integration rather than custom UI replacement.

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 description gives explicit sequencing guidance: 'Before installing any component, make sure to use the 'Installation' guidance first' and 'If instructed to build a login or signup related UI, use the 'LOGIN_AND_SIGNUP_INSTALLATION' guidance first.' This clarifies when to use specific guidance values, though it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools or state when not to use the tool.

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