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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state that the tool creates a resource and returns a public URL, which is helpful. However, it omits details about potential side effects, permissions, or error cases. The information provided is adequate but not rich enough to earn a higher score.

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 compact and well-structured. The first sentence establishes the primary purpose and return value, and the second provides essential parameter context. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or 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?

Given the tool's complexity (9 parameters with many optional) and no output schema, the description adequately covers the most important aspects: the return value (URL), the 'kind' variants, and the form integration. It does not need to repeat schema details. Some minor omissions, like default kind, are available in the schema, so the description is complete enough for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 67%, and the description adds meaningful context for key parameters: it explains the 'kind' values (blocks, code, ai, iframe, external_url) and clarifies the purpose of form_id ('Conéctale un formulario... para que capte suscriptores'). This goes beyond the schema and compensates for parameters with no description in the schema, like iframe_url and external_url.

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 function: 'Crea una página de aterrizaje y devuelve su URL pública.' It specifies the resource (landing page) and the action (create) with an additional outcome (returns URL). It also enumerates the different 'kind' variants, distinguishing this tool from siblings like create_launch or update_landing.

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 context for when to use the tool (to create a landing page) and includes additional guidance on how to attach a form with form_id. While it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives like update_landing or list_landings, the tool's purpose is obvious and no misleading exclusions are present.

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