Draft JSON-LD from a page

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: it produces a draft (not a final publication), trims answers to ~600 characters, and suggests a follow-up publishing step. It does not contradict any annotation and enriches the behavioral picture with concrete constraints.

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 three sentences with zero fluff. It front-loads the primary action, then breaks down each mode with a semicolon-separated list, and ends with the practical workflow note. Every sentence earns its place; the structure is scannable and efficient.

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?

Given the tool has 4 parameters, one enum, and no output schema, the description covers the essential behaviors: the output kinds, the trimming behavior, and the follow-up publishing step. It does not explicitly describe the exact JSON-LD structure returned, but that is implied by the purpose and the annotations cover read-only/idempotent behavior. The only minor gap is the lack of explicit mention of 'maxQuestions' behavior, but that is a schema-level detail. Overall it is complete enough for an agent to call 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 description coverage is only 25% (only organizationName has a schema description). The description compensates by explaining the 'kind' enum values in detail (faq, article, breadcrumb, all), but it does not clarify 'maxQuestions' beyond its schema metadata (default 10, max 30) nor the 'url' parameter, which is self-explanatory. It adds partial meaning for one parameter but leaves 'maxQuestions' under-documented, so it only partially compensates for the low schema coverage.

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 a specific verb (generate), a specific resource (draft JSON-LD from an existing page), and enumerates the four output kinds (faq, article, breadcrumb, all). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like schema_validate (which validates) and structured_data_audit (which audits) by framing itself as a generation tool. No ambiguity remains about what the 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?

The description gives clear context for when to use it: to produce draft structured data before publishing, and it names the follow-up action (publish with wp_set_schema). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare itself to alternatives like schema_validate, leaving some inference required. It implies usage through workflow rather than explicit exclusions.

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