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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and non-destructive, and the description adds meaningful context about the payment prerequisite and the live=false fallback with the preview URL. This goes beyond the structured fields and clarifies expected behavior in an important edge case.

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 short, front-loaded with the key usage condition, and avoids redundant explanation. It conveys the essential payment-gating behavior in just two sentences without waste.

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 a single well-documented parameter, read-only annotations, an output schema, and a clear payment-dependent behavior, the description is nearly complete. A slight gap is that it doesn't explicitly state what is returned when the owner has paid, although this is strongly implied by the title and tool purpose.

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?

The input schema already fully documents the token parameter, including its source, reuse across sibling tools, length constraints, and required status. The description adds no additional parameter detail, so the baseline of 3 applies given 100% schema description 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 clearly indicates the tool retrieves a live site URL and is tied to payment status, with a specific conditional behavior. It distinguishes itself from get_preview by mentioning the preview URL fallback, though it doesn't explicitly name the sibling alternative.

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 gives explicit timing guidance: use after the owner pays. It also explains the behavior when payment has not occurred, which helps an agent decide whether this tool is appropriate or whether preview-related functionality is needed.

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