generate_schema

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses the key behavioral guarantee that missing fields are 'listed, never invented', describes the output as a script tag, and enumerates accepted business_type values. It does not state whether anything is persisted server-side or what happens if the domain has no saved kit/scan, which leaves a material gap for an unannotated tool.

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 front-loaded with the action and output, then the paste instruction, then the business_type enumeration, then the missing-field guarantee. Every sentence carries information, though the line-broken formatting and trailing '...' enumeration are slightly ragged.

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 four-parameter generator with no output schema, the description covers the output shape (script tag with named JSON-LD fields), the source data, and null-handling behavior. The remaining hole is failure modes and prerequisites when no kit or scan exists, which an agent would want spelled out.

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%, so the description must compensate. It partially does: business_type gets a long enumeration of valid values, and the JSON-LD field list clarifies what domain/area_served/price_range feed into. However, those three parameters are never defined directly, and 'domain' in particular (site domain vs. property domain) is left to inference.

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 names a specific verb and artifact: 'Generate ready-to-paste LocalBusiness JSON-LD' with an explicit field list, and it names the source of truth ('the saved submission kit (or the last scan)'). This also implicitly separates it from siblings like build_submission_kit and scan_site, which produce or refresh that source rather than the schema artifact.

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?

It states the precondition (a saved submission kit or the last scan must exist) and the post-step ('Paste the returned script tag into your site's <head>'), so an agent knows the surrounding workflow. It does not explicitly say when to prefer this over build_submission_kit or what to do when neither source exists, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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