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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It states the output: 'Returns the complete file inline, the components to install first, and how to mount it.' It also flags a cost with 'PAID.' However, it does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only or mutating, though generating a file implies a side effect. Overall transparent and not contradictory.

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 compact, using three sentences to cover purpose, output, alternative, and requirement. It starts with 'PAID.' as a flag, then proceeds efficiently without unnecessary detail. Every sentence adds value.

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 no output schema, the description provides essential output details (the file, components to install, mounting instructions) and a prerequisite (share code). It also disambiguates from a sibling tool. It does not cover error cases or more detailed behavior, but for a simple two-parameter tool, the coverage is strong. Slight deduction for not describing what 'PAID' entails or any failure modes.

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 coverage is 100% (both compositionId and componentName have descriptions). The description adds context for compositionId by saying 'Needs the share code from the composer,' which aligns with the param description. It does not add significant new meaning for componentName beyond the schema's example and default, so a baseline score of 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Turn one composed screen into a real TSX file you can drop into an app you already have' with a clear verb 'Turn... into' and resource. It also distinguishes itself from emit_app, saying 'Use emit_app instead when the customer wants a whole app with navigation and a tab bar.'

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 explicitly provides when to use and when not to use: 'Use emit_app instead when the customer wants a whole app...' It also mentions a prerequisite: 'Needs the share code from the composer,' guiding the agent on required context.

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