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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that browsing without a technique is free/unmetered, and mentions built-in features like contrast scrims, mobile behavior, and reduced-motion. It does not describe the output format or failure modes, but it covers several behavioral aspects beyond a simple 'get'.

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 a dense paragraph but front-loaded with the tier comparison and packed with specific technique names, features, and usage instructions. Every clause provides useful information, though it reads as a wall of text. It earns its length for a complex tool.

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 complex tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description explains techniques and included assets but lacks details on what the 'full skeleton' output actually looks like (e.g., HTML, code, visual template) and does not mention prerequisites or behavior when direction is omitted. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to fully anticipate the tool's return.

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% since both params have descriptions. The description adds value by explaining the browse-vs-full-skeleton semantics of the `technique` param and that `direction` fills the skeleton with the pack's hexes, enriching the parameter meaning beyond the schema.

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: providing 'finished showpiece skeletons for scene-led, art-directed pages' and enumerates specific techniques (world hero, video world hero, type-scene interlock, etc.). It also explicitly distinguishes itself as 'the tier ABOVE the design directions', differentiating it from the sibling tool get_design_direction.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use when the brief says wow, cinematic, premium beyond a normal landing page.' It also contrasts with design directions as a higher tier, and explains the invocation pattern: browse menu without a technique (free), get full skeleton with a technique id. This is clear and actionable.

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