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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the return shape (ordered plan with slugs, URLs, dependencies, constraints) and rules out code generation, which is real behavioral value. However it says nothing about side effects (does it persist anything?), determinism, whether an unknown theme/block causes failure, or what the limit bounds.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero filler. The output-form clarification, which is the most decision-relevant fact, is front-loaded in the second clause rather than buried.

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?

With five parameters and no output schema, the description does the necessary job of explaining what comes back (an ordered plan, not code). Remaining gaps are modest: no mention of failure modes for unknown themes or blocks, and no guidance on the 1-20 limit or the interplay between sections and pageType.

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 80%, so most parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about how 'limit' interacts with 'sections', how explicit section roles relate to inferred ones, or what a 'real catalogue block' implies for the theme parameter. 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Compose a page') and adds a crucial scope clarification: the output is an ordered plan of block slugs, URLs, dependencies and constraints, 'not generated code.' That distinguishes it from the retrieval-oriented siblings (get_page, search_blocks), though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. An agent must infer that this is the planning/building step rather than a lookup step, and nothing says whether it must be preceded by search_blocks or get_design_system, or what to do if the intent cannot be satisfied from the catalogue.

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