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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does substantial work: it states the output is copy-pasteable code (implying nothing is deployed or mutated) and specifies the performance target (<15ms) and the exact headers required. It leaves unstated whether the tool only emits scaffolding versus provisioning anything, which keeps it from a 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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with the artifact and its purpose stated first, followed by the supporting enumeration. The dense parenthetical listing of five stacks and four paths is information-bearing but makes the sentence long; a short list format would read better.

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 two-parameter generator with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what is produced, in which flavors, and with which content types, which is enough for correct invocation. It could go one step further by stating the form of the return value (raw file text) and whether the domain must already be live.

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 both parameters are already fully documented, including the stack enum and the domain example. The description's stack list mirrors the enum rather than adding new semantics, 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?

The description gives a specific verb ("Generate") and a specific artifact (a starter ASO edge router), then enumerates the exact stacks supported and the four endpoint paths and content types it must serve. No sibling tool could be confused with this one, since it explicitly names the emitted files and headers.

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 scopes usage clearly with "for any B2B SaaS domain serving /llms.txt, /.well-known/ai.txt...", which tells the agent the situation that selects this tool. It stops short of naming alternatives such as probe_domain_aso_score for auditing or reserve_deliver_first_edge_worker for deployment, and offers no explicit when-not guidance.

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