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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden and handles it thoroughly. It reveals what the tool does not return ('Returns metadata only — no pattern bodies'), discloses the design constraints it enforces ('density wave pacing, one GL spectacle, 12–18 viewport-heights'), and specifies the exact return structure (each act with purpose, pattern slugs, density rating). This is rich behavioral context that goes well beyond what any schema or annotation could encode.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: purpose, return format, protocol constraints, workflow chaining to get_pattern, and the metadata-only exclusion. The core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and all subsequent clauses add distinct, non-redundant information. No filler or tautology.

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?

This tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description must fully specify return values and behavioral constraints — and it does. It discloses the act-map return format in detail (compensating for the absent output schema), the one-page protocol constraints, the metadata-only scope, and the downstream get_pattern workflow. For a design-generation tool with this complexity, nothing an agent needs 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 the schema already documents both parameters ('intent' and 'acts' with default and range), placing the baseline at 3. The description adds marginal enrichment by tying 'acts' to the act-map structure (purpose, patterns, density), giving the parameter meaning beyond a bare count, and by implying 'intent' drives the whole design. This slightly exceeds baseline but does not fundamentally compensate for anything the schema lacks.

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 — 'Design a complete page from intent' — and specifies the exact output: an act map of 5–7 acts. It distinguishes itself from pattern-level siblings by operating at page scope: get_pattern retrieves code, recommend_patterns suggests patterns, audit_page evaluates. An agent can immediately tell this is the page-design entry point versus its siblings without opening any schemas.

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 an explicit workflow handoff: 'Feed the result straight to get_pattern to retrieve the code,' which chains this tool to a named sibling and clarifies its role as a design-time, not retrieval-time, tool. It clearly frames when to use it (designing a complete page from intent). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it versus other design-adjacent siblings like recommend_patterns, leaving some comparison to inference.

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