growsurf_integration_guide

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe, non-destructive operation. The description adds the 'happy-path' qualifier and scopes to referral + affiliate, but does not disclose what the plan contains or any constraints on how it is generated. Given the annotations, a 3 is appropriate since the description is consistent but does not add meaningful behavioral context beyond the structured metadata.

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 a single, concise sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded with the verb and outcome. While it is short, it is not overly verbose and does not waste words. The structure is appropriate for a simple guide generator, though it could afford to include a bit more detail without losing conciseness.

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 tool has five parameters, a rich schema with enums and defaults, and an output schema exists, the description should provide enough context for the agent to know how to configure the plan. However, it offers only a vague 'happy-path' concept and program type, leaving the other parameters ambiguous. There is no explanation of what the plan will include or how the parameters influence it, making it incomplete for confident invocation.

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 schema description coverage at 0%, the description must clarify parameter meanings, but it fails to do so. The only hint is 'referral + affiliate' which maps to programType, but none of the other four parameters (singlePageApp, referralTrigger, webhookSecurity, participantAuthEnabled) are mentioned or explained. The schema provides enums and defaults, but the description does not add semantics or usage context for any parameter.

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 states a clear verb ('Generate') and a specific resource ('a guided, happy-path GrowSurf integration plan') and mentions the scope ('referral + affiliate'). This is not a tautology and conveys the tool's essential role. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from similar sibling tools like growsurf_mobile_sdk_guide or growsurf_api_library_snippets, which also appear to be guides.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as the other guide-style tools (e.g., growsurf_mobile_sdk_guide). The purpose is implied but not stated with exclusions or conditions. The agent would have to infer that this is the correct guide based on the 'referral + affiliate' wording, but no when-to-use or when-not-to-use information is provided.

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