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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and discloses that the tool emits analysis artifacts (scores, patches, creative direction, implementation prompt) rather than directly mutating the site. This implies a read-only/planning behavior, which is a meaningful behavioral trait. It does not mention rate limits, auth, or side effects, but for a planning tool that produces outputs, the description is adequately transparent.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose ('Detailed transformation plan for power users'), then an alternative directive, then a list of concrete outputs. Every sentence contributes distinct information with no fluff.

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 explains the tool's key outputs (scores, fix patches, creative direction, implementation prompt) and its scope relative to polish_and_prove. It does not describe the exact output structure or parameter interactions, but the absence of an output schema and the presence of detailed parameter descriptions mean the description is sufficient for a qualified agent.

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 provides a description for all 7 parameters, giving 100% coverage. The description does not add semantic detail beyond the schema—it never mentions url, source, vibe, etc.—so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states exactly what the tool does with specific verbs: 'classifies and scores a site, returns exact fix patches, chooses a creative spine and direction, and emits a paste-ready implementation prompt.' It also distinguishes itself from the sibling polish_and_prove by explicitly pointing to that tool for the full workflow, making its own scope clear.

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 an explicit alternative directive: 'prefer polish_and_prove' for the complete inspect/fix/rerender/client-proof workflow, implying this tool is for a narrower transformation-plan use case. It also identifies the audience as 'power users' and describes the tool as a 'detailed transformation plan,' giving context on when it's appropriate. It stops short of enumerating all exclusions from the many siblings, but the single alternative is sufficient.

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