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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that — output fields, the anti-fabrication grounding rule, and that 'notes' carries placement guidance plus existing-schema warnings. It does not address the idempotentHint=false signal, leaving a small 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?

Front-loaded with the core action and return shape, then application steps. It is one dense paragraph that runs long, but nearly every clause earns its place (outputs, grounding rule, per-platform apply path, context trigger); only minor tightening is possible.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully carries the burden: it names all three return fields and explains what each is for, and it covers the applying step the agent needs to complete the job. Nothing required to call or act on the result 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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it explains when 'context' must be supplied (when page text alone is insufficient) and reinforces the no-fabrication constraint on that object, plus reiterates the enum-ish schema_type choices.

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 — generating valid schema.org JSON-LD for a page — and names the exact artifacts returned ('jsonld', 'html_snippet', 'notes'). This clearly separates it from sibling utilities like snippet_check or wp_widget_schema, which inspect or embed rather than generate.

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 gives concrete application guidance (Wix Custom Code embed via the Wix MCP, Xyle wp tools for WordPress, otherwise hand the snippet to the user) and tells the agent when to pass 'context' for faq/howto/localbusiness. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over neighboring schema-related siblings, so it stops short of a full when/why-alternative map.

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