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

Annotations already declare read-only, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real context an agent needs: an API key prerequisite and the fact that the output is long and directly pasteable rather than a short answer. It stops short of noting latency, cost, or output length limits.

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?

One sentence with front-loaded verb and outcome, plus a short prerequisite clause. No filler and nothing buried.

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 one-parameter generation tool with no output schema, the description covers input expectation, auth requirement, and the general nature of the return value. It could say more about the output's shape or variation between target builders, but nothing essential to making the call 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% for the single parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning the schema does not: 'one-line idea' tells the agent to pass a short seed rather than a full specification, which shapes how the parameter should be filled in.

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 transformation: takes a one-line idea and returns a long, ready-to-paste master prompt. The output artifact (a builder prompt, not a website or form) clearly separates it from siblings like generate_website and generate_form, and it even names the target builders.

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?

Usage is implied by the input shape ('a one-line idea') and the artifact produced, plus a hard prerequisite ('Requires a Waspes API key'). However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and no routing against nearby siblings such as generate_website.

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