suggestions.generate

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which are consistent with the description's portrayal of a non-destructive suggestion generator. The description adds behavioral context: it handles clarification requests, requires explicit choice before deployment, and has auto-DNS behavior. No contradiction.

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 relatively long but well-structured with step numbers and conditional logic. It front-loads the key message 'START HERE' and uses imperative sentences. Every sentence serves a purpose, though it could be slightly streamlined without losing clarity.

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?

Given the complexity (6 params, nested objects, output schema exists), the description fully covers the tool's role in the workflow, interaction pattern (clarification request), and special cases (auto-DNS). It is complete enough for an agent to use correctly without additional context.

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?

With 100% schema parameter coverage, the schema already details each parameter. The description adds value by explaining how to use region (detected from step 1), requirements (when responding to clarificationRequest), and maxMonthlyCostUsd (filters options). This is above the baseline of 3 for high coverage.

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 explicitly states 'START HERE for any deployment' and outlines a clear two-step process: first detect region/provider then call this tool. It specifies the output as 'Starter/MVP/Startup/Enterprise options with monthly costs' and distinguishes from siblings by positioning itself as the second step.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: after region.detect or providers.detect. It also covers conditional scenarios like handling clarificationRequest, waiting for explicit choice before deploy.run, and auto-DNS when domain and CLOUDFLARE_API_TOKEN are set. This differentiates it from sibling tools like deploy.run and region.detect.

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