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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses useful behavioral traits: required fields are validated, errors name exactly what is missing, and the operation is 'free, no API call.' This tells an agent what to expect on failure and that no external side effects or costs occur.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a useful type list and validation behavior. The supported-types list partially duplicates the enum in the schema, but it helps agents quickly identify applicability without opening the schema.

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?

Given the rich input schema, output schema, and readOnly annotation, the description covers everything an agent needs to select and invoke the tool: what it generates, which types are supported, how validation works, and cost/external-call behavior. Nothing critical is missing.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, and the schema already enumerates all 13 types and the required per-type fields. The description adds general reinforcement about validation but does not add new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Generate valid schema.org JSON-LD structured data' for 13 named content types. This makes the tool's function immediately clear and distinguishes it from the unrelated SEO/research sibling tools without needing to inspect the 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?

The description gives clear usage context: use it when you need schema markup 'ready to drop into a page' for any of the listed types. It does not explicitly name an alternative or exclusion, but none of the sibling tools generate JSON-LD markup, so the intended use case is unambiguous.

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