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

Annotations already declare this a safe, idempotent read, yet the description still adds real behavior: the tool validates that the document will render and returns an error listing what to fix, it does not verify factual claims, it echoes the entire card as text with a one-line handoff, and it labels the card as composed by the agent. Source restriction to pages the site publishes and the MCP Apps host vs. plain-text behavior are also disclosed.

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 purpose is front-loaded, but the body is a single long run-on paragraph dense with semicolons, parentheticals, trigger lists and alternatives. Nearly all content earns its place, yet the lack of structure makes the when-to-use and failure-mode information harder to extract than it needs to be.

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 complex tool requiring a structured A2UI document, the description covers the input contract, validation/failure behavior, source provenance, rendering fallback, attribution labeling and sibling alternatives; since an output schema exists, return-value detail is correctly left out. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly appears 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already documented, and the catalog ID / catalogId list is spelled out in the schema itself. The description adds only light extra meaning (sources must come from search/get_page, only this site's pages are cited). Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 concrete verb+artifact: draw the answer as a card by writing an A2UI v0.9.1 document, and enumerates the card shapes (comparison with verdict, plan as steps, calculator, quiz, table, diagram). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by routing posts, case-study comparisons and readiness checks to explore_post, compare_case_studies and assess_databricks_readiness.

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 rule ('Call it whenever the answer has a shape'), literal user phrasings to match ('compare', 'X vs Y', 'pros and cons', 'roadmap', 'show me', 'draw', 'chart'), a negative rule ('rather than answering with a long Markdown table or list'), named alternatives for the excluded cases, and the prerequisite to fetch facts with search/get_page first.

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