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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers non-mutating behavior, and the description adds transparency by stating the tool is deterministic and returns a checklist rather than performing actions. No contradictions exist, though more detail about failure modes or empty inputs would improve transparency.

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 informative but somewhat verbose, with repetitive emphasis on planning first and the rationale behind it. It could be tightened while retaining the key sequencing and output details.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description enumerates the main return elements (build checklist, page structure, terminology, detail-page determination, multi-tenant login pattern, seed guidance, examples to copy). This gives the agent a solid expectation of what will be provided, though explicit output formatting is not described.

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?

The schema descriptions cover all four parameters at 100%, so the tool description does not need to add much. It does add context around how entities, public_facing, and is_multi_tenant affect the returned guidance, but those nuances are already present in the input schema.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: turning an app idea into an explicit build checklist. It names the specific outputs (page structure, terminology, detail-page guidance, multi-tenant login pattern, seed guidance, examples to copy) and distinguishes it from related build tools by specifying it should be called after build_get_skills and before authoring.

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 invocation sequence: 'Call it right after build_get_skills and BEFORE authoring.' It also clarifies the tool is deterministic and not LLM-based, which helps agents choose it appropriately among similar build_* tools.

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