generate_schema

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions detection, generation, and validation but doesn't cover error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens with invalid inputs. The description is functional but lacks operational context needed for safe invocation.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences: first states the core functionality, second adds key features (detection, validation, output format). Every phrase adds value without repetition or fluff, making it easy to parse.

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 3 parameters with full schema coverage but no annotations and no output schema, the description adequately covers the 'what' but lacks depth on behavioral aspects. It mentions the return format ('ready-to-use code snippets') but doesn't describe output structure or error cases. For a generation tool with no safety annotations, more operational context would be beneficial.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain interactions between domain and url_path or clarify schema_type selection logic). Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Auto-generate structured data', 'Detects page type', 'generates appropriate schema') and resources ('schema.org JSON-LD', 'ready-to-use code snippets'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on schema generation rather than crawling, SEO insights, or feature specs.

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 context ('for any page', 'detects page type') but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like generate_meta or get_page_seo. It mentions automatic detection vs. manual specification but lacks guidance on prerequisites or exclusions.

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