Make a Sales Page

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

Adds substantial context beyond annotations: a per-call cost of 3 credits (which reinforces the non-idempotent hint — repeated calls spend more), the fact that Better Design fills in omitted headline/copy and draws the visual, and the exact return contract (viewUrl shows progress then the page; imageUrl/pdfUrl resolve only once ready). The verified-email account requirement is a real authorization constraint the annotations do not capture.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then required inputs, then cost/outputs/prerequisites — a sensible order with little waste. It is dense (three long sentences packing cost, links, design-system sourcing, and account requirements) and could be broken up for faster scanning, but every sentence carries information.

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?

With 12 parameters and no output schema, the description carries the full burden and does: it explains the three returned URLs and their readiness semantics, the credit cost, the designSystemId source, and the account prerequisite. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly or interpret the result is missing.

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%, so the schema already documents every field including the 'Left out, Better Design writes it' fallbacks. The description adds only modest value by grouping the required fields and generalizing the omission behavior ('the copy you leave out'), without new format, limit, or interaction detail. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource plus output shape: 'Make a hosted sales page for one account, with the same page as a one-page PDF, in a catalog design system.' That is clearly distinguishable from siblings like make-social-image, plan-video, or create-design-system.

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?

Gives the inputs to supply and an explicit dependency route ('Take designSystemId from find-design-system') plus a prerequisite ('needs a Better Design account with a verified email'). It does not, however, say when to pick this over adjacent tools such as make-social-image or when a sales page is inappropriate.

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