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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the output is in plain language with no internal jargon, that the report is client-safe, that before/after includes both screenshots and score improvement, and that white-labeling affects both the report text and the public report page. It does not mention authentication, side effects, or exact return format, but the disclosed behavior is substantial.

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 dense but well-structured: it front-loads the core outcome, then explains optional parameters and branding behavior. Each sentence earns its place; there is no filler or repeated schema information.

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?

The description covers the core purpose, output contents, parameter usage, and white-label behavior, which is sufficient for selection and invocation. Without an output schema or annotations, it does not fully specify return structure or operational constraints, but the description is strong enough for an agent to act confidently.

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 input schema already describes all six parameters with 100% coverage, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds meaningful semantics: after_url and after_source are presented as alternatives enabling a true before/after with both screenshots and score improvement, and agency_name is explained as the white-label control for 'Prepared by X' on the report and public page.

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 uses a specific verb ('Generate') and a specific deliverable ('CLIENT-READY design audit report'), then enumerates the contents: Standout Score, blockers, fixes, client-safe summary, and screenshots. It clearly differentiates from sibling critique/design tools by emphasizing the agency-to-client, white-label use case.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: for an agency sending a report to a client, with the current page URL, optionally an after_url/after_source for before/after comparisons, and agency_name for white-labeling. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like critique_design or make_it_standout, nor does it state when not to use it.

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