qa_one_pager_layout

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by stating it 'measure[s] every text slot with exact CP fonts' and 'check[s] required fields without writing files.' This is consistent with annotations and adds value, though it does not cover other potential behaviors like error handling or performance.

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 single sentence, concise and front-loaded with the core action. It avoids redundancy, but could be improved by including more useful context without becoming verbose.

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 tool with such a complex input schema, the description is severely lacking. It does not explain what 'exact CP fonts' means, what the output looks like, or how to handle the required fields beyond the schema. The tool name suggests one-pager layout, but the description does not ground the context enough for an agent to use it effectively.

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 0% – the description provides no explanation of the 'content' parameter or its structure. The schema is complex with many required nested fields, but the description does not compensate at all, leaving the agent without guidance on how to construct valid input.

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 ('Measure' and 'check') and resource ('every text slot', 'required fields'), making the purpose clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool validate_one_pager_file, which likely also checks required fields, so it isn't fully distinguished.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or reference to sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage from the name alone.

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