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

Annotations declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds real context beyond them: it is public (no auth implied), it serves a live kit rather than a pinned one, and it returns logic/outcomes but deliberately no visual design ("design the site from the restaurant's brief"). It stops short of discussing response size, pagination, or version drift beyond what the schema already notes.

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 trigger phrase before any detail, and each clause carries information (outputs, design constraint, exclusions, example, next step). It is dense to the point of being clipped, but no sentence is filler.

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 read-only, no-auth, zero-required-param knowledge tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers trigger, exclusions, returned artifacts, a design constraint, a concrete example, and the next-tool handoff. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly 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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented, including enum-like values for framework. The description only adds that the scaffold plan is returned "with framework" and echoes the example call; it contributes marginal meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is 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?

Names a specific verb+resource (learn the Okam Storefront Kit) and enumerates exactly what it returns: must-nots, build steps, sandbox key, topics, and optionally a scaffold plan. It also carves out what it is NOT (guest ordering, restaurant admin) and names kit_docs_get as the follow-up, so it is distinguishable from every sibling without opening a schema.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger with ordinal urgency ("call first whenever you build or change a restaurant's own ordering website") plus explicit exclusions ("Not for ordering food as a guest or for restaurant admin"). It also hands off to the correct sibling for the next step: "kit_docs_get for the topics the steps name."

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