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

Despite annotations covering the safety profile, the description adds substantial behavior beyond them: async run semantics (returns build_run_id, completion requires artifact_ready), the required get_build polling pattern, purchase-price quoting rules, and an explicit publishing restriction. These are operational traits the 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?

Four dense sentences, each contributing distinct operational instruction, front-loaded with the core action. Slightly packed with side rules (pricing, publishing) but 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?

For a tool with no output schema, the description covers the return value (build_run_id), the completion signal (artifact_ready via get_build), gating (plan coverage/purchase), and downstream publishing constraints — enough for an agent to run the full workflow 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 a middling 67% and the description only indirectly references the selected design. audit_id lacks any schema description and direction is described only in the schema, so the prose adds little beyond the structured fields.

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 (Build) and resource (the selected design into a complete HTML page), and its scope is clearly distinguishable from publish_page, share_page, and generate_concepts. An agent knows exactly what this tool produces.

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?

Explicit conditions and routing: use check_balance for plan coverage, do not publish or share without the user asking, and poll with get_build wait:25. It names the alternative tools and the when-not conditions rather than leaving them to inference.

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