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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false). The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: it is a one-step operation, the reveal is per-section and staggered, and navbars/footers are deliberately skipped, which lets the agent predict the resulting markup. It does not discuss reversibility (e.g. via undo), a minor gap.

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, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by scope/target detail and the alternative. No filler; every clause earns its place.

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 single-optional-parameter tool with no output schema and annotations covering the safety profile, the description is essentially complete — an agent knows the action, targets, exclusions, and preferred-over alternative. Only the reversibility/undo relationship is left unstated.

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% and the single 'scope' parameter is fully documented in the schema with its enum meanings. The description's reference to 'the page or site' loosely echoes that enum but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already provides, 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Apply Swebsy's built-in scroll-reveal animation') and enumerates exactly what it targets (headings, text, images, buttons, cards) plus what it excludes (navbars/footers). No sibling in the list does page-wide animation, and the description also contrasts itself with the hand-authored 'animate-* classes' approach.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('whenever the user asks to animate the page or site, or wants a consistent reveal') and names the alternative it should displace ('hand-placing animate-* classes'). It stops short of stating when NOT to use it (e.g. pages already animated), but the routing guidance is clear.

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