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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and it delivers key facts: the page is created disabled, requires a human to enable it, is served at /p/<slug>, and tier limits apply at that point. It stops short of describing the immediate return value or whether creation can be undone, so 4 rather than 5.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the core action and draft state, then the trigger, required inputs, and post-enable behavior. Every sentence adds relevant information and there is no 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 5-parameter creation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the key context: input expectations, slug default, lifecycle from draft to human enablement, URL, and limit behavior. A small gap is the lack of any statement about what the call returns, which the empty output schema does not fill.

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%, so the description must compensate. It covers the slug generation default and lists headline, body, and button_text, but it does not add much semantic meaning beyond the property names, and it does not mention constraints like maxLength or the slug pattern. This is adequate but leaves gaps.

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 names the specific operation: 'Create a hosted lead-capture landing page' and immediately disambiguates it by stating it is created as a DRAFT and is not publicly live until a human enables it. It also gives a concrete trigger phrase, making the tool's purpose unmistakable and distinguishing it from sibling creation tools like create_growth_widget.

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?

It provides an explicit when-to-use trigger: 'Use when the user says...'. It does not list exclusions or alternatives, but the draft/disabled behavior gives the agent enough context to recognize when this is the right tool.

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