Pipepost

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only discloses one behavioral trait: '[requires credits]' indicating a cost or resource usage. It lacks details on permissions, rate limits, output format, or side effects, which are critical for a generation tool with no output schema.

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 extremely concise with a single sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes a crucial constraint. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 generation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the generated JSON-LD looks like, how it's returned, or any behavioral constraints beyond credits. Given the complexity and lack of structured data, more context is needed for effective use.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters well. The description adds minimal value by listing the enum values (Article, FAQ, HowTo) for the 'type' parameter, but doesn't explain 'data' beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: 'Generate JSON-LD structured data' with specific types (Article, FAQ, HowTo). It uses a specific verb ('Generate') and identifies the resource ('JSON-LD structured data'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'seo_meta' or 'seo_score' that might handle other SEO aspects.

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 minimal guidance with '[requires credits]' hinting at a cost or limitation, but offers no explicit when-to-use advice, no alternatives among siblings, and no context on prerequisites. It doesn't help an agent decide between this and tools like 'seo_meta' or 'content_audit' for SEO tasks.

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