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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations: it declares the tool is free, that Postclick does not host pages, that it returns a download link plus an implementation_prompt, and that every variant stops at a draft and never publishes without user confirmation. That last constraint is critical behavioral context an agent cannot infer.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and output format, and most sentences carry real routing or behavioral weight. It runs long and the 'Free.' fragment plus the hosting aside could be tightened, but nothing is filler at the level of a wasted sentence.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the return contract itself — zip contents, download link, and implementation_prompt — and it does so fully. Combined with the draft-only safety guarantee, an agent has everything needed to call and act on this 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 only 50% (build_run_id is undocumented everywhere), but the description compensates for platform by explaining why it matters ('the steps for WordPress and for Webflow are genuinely different') and how to behave when unknown ('Ask if you do not know'), which adds meaning beyond the enum description. build_run_id remains unexplained in both.

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 and resource (packages a finished page) and names the exact artifact produced (a zip with index.html, assets/, README, metadata.json). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling share_page, so an agent can route without opening either schema.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use routing ('This is the one for a user who wants the files. share_page is the one for a user who wants something to look at'), guidance on passing platform ('Pass platform when you know where the site lives... Ask if you do not know'), and the fallback when the agent lacks site access.

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