Generate JSON-LD Schema

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

Beyond annotations, the description discloses meaningful behavioral traits: it detects site metadata, produces multiple schema types plus starter templates, returns ready-to-paste script blocks, and requires an API key. This aligns with readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true while adding concrete expectations about the tool's operation.

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 four sentences, each carrying distinct information: the core action, the detected metadata, the output format, and the API key requirement. There is no filler or redundancy, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential calling context: what it detects, what schemas it produces, how output is returned, and the required API key. It does not explain API key acquisition or error behavior, but the agent has enough to select and invoke the tool 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?

The input schema already fully describes the single 'url' parameter as 'The website to generate schema for,' giving 100% schema description coverage. The description reinforces that the URL points to the target website but adds no parameter-level detail, so the 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 uses a specific verb ('Generate') and resource ('JSON-LD structured data for a website'), then enumerates concrete output types including Organization, WebSite, Article, BreadcrumbList, and FAQPage. This clearly differentiates it from siblings such as validate_schema or generate_robots_txt.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: generating JSON-LD schema for a website, and it notes the API key prerequisite. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the artifact type and sibling names make the intended use reasonably unambiguous.

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