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

Annotations already indicate the tool is not read-only (readOnlyHint=false), not destructive (destructiveHint=false), and open-world (openWorldHint=true). The description adds context about cost ($0.005 per call) and that the generated schema is current to 2026 Google guidance. However, it does not detail potential side effects or what the 'self-audit' entails. The description adds some value but not extensive behavioral context beyond annotations.

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 concise: three sentences that front-load the purpose and key differentiator (complement to audit), then detail return values, supported types, and cost. Every sentence adds essential information without redundancy.

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?

Given the tool has two well-described parameters, an output schema exists, and annotations are present, the description covers the main aspects: purpose, how to use (POST {type, fields}), return format, supported types, and cost. However, it does not explain what 'self-audit' means or discuss error conditions, but it is largely complete for a straightforward generation tool.

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% (both parameters described in schema). The description adds value by listing the allowed types for the 'type' parameter and giving an example for 'fields' ('e.g. {name, price, brand} for Product'). It also mentions currency to 2026 guidance, which implies accepted fields. This goes beyond the generic schema descriptions.

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: 'Generate valid, current-spec schema.org JSON-LD from plain fields'. It identifies the specific verb (Generate), resource (schema.org JSON-LD), and distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'post_schema_audit' by calling itself the complement. The supported types and return format are explicitly listed.

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 provides clear guidance on when to use this tool by mentioning it is the complement to '/api/schema/audit', implying it is for generating JSON-LD while the audit tool is for checking existing schema. It also lists the supported types. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention any prerequisites or alternatives beyond the complement.

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