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

Annotations only tell the agent it is non-read-only and non-destructive. The description adds the async contract that matters most: it takes ~3 minutes, STARTS the job and returns immediately with a rebuild_id, and the result must be collected via `check_rebuild`. It also discloses the layout-rewriting behavior and the PDF/PPTX-only limitation, which annotations cannot convey.

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-loads the core purpose and the async behavior, and every sentence carries real information. It is on the long side and repeats the brand_from assets-only caveat already in the schema, which costs it a point, but there is no 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?

No output schema exists, yet the description still explains what comes back (a rebuild_id) and how to retrieve the finished page. Between the format limits, the async pattern, and the brand_from preconditions, an agent has everything needed to invoke this correctly and set correct user expectations.

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 baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by explaining *why* and *when* to populate `brand_from` (ask the user; it is the difference between their brand and a generic page), though the 'assets only, never layout' caveat is largely duplicated from the schema text.

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 (rebuild) and resource (PDF/PowerPoint on docfarm into a live HTML page) plus the crucial scope constraint that it rewrites rather than reproduces layout. It names the sibling it hands off to (`check_rebuild`) and the supported input formats, so an agent can distinguish it from `app_read_doc`, `patch_doc`, or `show_doc` 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 explicit when-to-use (retrofit an existing PDF/PPTX into a mobile-readable live page), when-not (it does NOT reproduce original layout), the follow-up step (`check_rebuild`), and a prerequisite conversation (ask about `brand_from` before starting). It even pre-empts a wrong question ('Do not ask them how it should look'), which is unusually actionable routing guidance.

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