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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it checks Google-required properties for the chosen type and returns a ready-to-paste script tag, though it does not describe error behavior when required fields are missing.

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 description is two tightly written sentences with no filler. The supported types and the validation/output behavior are front-loaded, and every sentence contributes useful information.

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?

Given the tool's complexity, nested data parameter, and lack of an output schema, the description is nearly complete: it explains the supported types, the validation against Google's required properties, and the return format as a ready-to-paste script tag. The only minor gap is that it does not explain how missing required properties are handled.

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 input schema already documents the two parameters in detail, including the nested data fields for each schema type. The description lists the supported schema types but does not add syntax or format guidance beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it builds schema.org JSON-LD for a page. It enumerates the supported schema types (FAQ, local business, organization, article/blog post, product, person, breadcrumb), which makes the tool's scope immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like meta_tags_builder.

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 makes the usage context clear: generate structured data markup for a page, with supported content types listed. It does not explicitly name when not to use the tool or point to an alternative sibling, but the domain is clear enough for an agent to select it confidently.

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