meta_description

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It specifies the output length but does not disclose the return format (likely a string), nor potential side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits. The generative nature is implied but not fully transparent.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the action and key constraint (character count). No redundant words; every part earns its place.

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 simple tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is brief but slightly incomplete: it omits the 'email' parameter and does not specify the return value (a string). The character range is good, but the missing parameter coverage reduces completeness.

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 coverage is 100% with field descriptions. The description adds the 150-160 character constraint not in the schema, but fails to mention the 'email' parameter. It adds meaningful context for 'title' and 'bodySnippet', justifying above-baseline scoring.

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 it generates a meta description from a title and optional snippet, specifying the character range (150-160). This verb+resource combination is distinct from sibling tools like export_markdown or faq_schema.

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 implies usage for generating meta descriptions but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. No exclusions or when-not examples are given, leaving the agent to infer context.

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