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

The description adds useful behavior beyond the annotations: it specifies the output format (script tag) and the scope of supported types. The annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent behavior, and the description is consistent, contributing transparency about what the tool returns.

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 sentences: the first states the primary function and output, the second lists supported types. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or filler content.

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 presence of a rich input schema, output schema, and annotations, the description is adequate for a user to understand the tool's purpose and basic usage. It could mention the purpose of the 'fields' or 'faq_items' parameters, but the schema already covers that, so no significant gap remains.

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 schema already documents all three parameters with descriptions. The tool description does not add extra semantic detail beyond the schema, fitting the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 clearly states a specific verb ('Generate') and resource ('a ready-to-paste <script type="application/ld+json"> snippet') and lists supported schema types, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'score_geo_signals' and other data transformation utilities.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool ('for GEO / structured data optimization') and enumerates supported types, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. The context is sufficiently clear given the focused purpose.

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