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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the shape of the result ('ordered list of Facade blocks'), with no note on determinism, coverage limits, or what happens for unrecognized business types.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler and the key scope in the first clause. The parenthetical examples are slightly redundant with the schema but not wasteful.

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 simple one-parameter, read-only tool this is close to adequate, but with no output schema the description should say more about what a returned 'Facade block' entry looks like (names, identifiers, ordering semantics).

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% and the schema already documents 'business' with the same examples. The description's examples largely duplicate the schema, so no meaningful extra parameter guidance is provided beyond baseline.

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 (suggest) and resource (an ordered list of Facade blocks for a complete page), plus concrete business-type examples that make the intent unambiguous. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like list_components, but the verb 'suggest ... ordered list ... to build a complete page' is distinguishable from plain listing.

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?

Usage is implied: call this when you need a page plan for a given business type. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer it over list_components/get_component, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.

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