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

Annotations already declare this as read-only and non-destructive; the description adds meaningful conditional behavior: unpaid owners yield live=false and a preview URL. This clarifies what to expect without repeating the annotation. It does not disclose deeper details like authentication or error cases, but that is acceptable for a simple read operation.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The primary usage condition is front-loaded, and the conditional behavior follows immediately. Every part of the text contributes useful guidance.

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?

For a single-parameter read-only tool with a full input schema and an output schema, the description covers the key decision point: payment status. The sibling context distinguishes get_preview, and the token semantics are documented in the schema. Nothing essential is missing for a correct 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?

The input schema already fully describes the token parameter, including its origin from start_build and its reuse in get_preview and get_live_site. The tool description itself adds no parameter explanation, but with 100% schema coverage the baseline applies. The schema's parameter description is sufficient and even provides cross-tool context.

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 conveys the tool's role: after the owner pays, it returns live site information, and if not paid it reports live=false plus the preview URL. The title reinforces the verb-resource pair. It does not explicitly name get_preview as the alternative, so sibling differentiation relies on inference from the preview URL mention.

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 an explicit temporal condition: 'Use this after the owner pays.' It also explains the fallback behavior when that condition is not met, which helps the agent decide whether this tool is appropriate. It stops short of explicitly telling the agent to use get_preview instead, so the exclusion is implied rather than stated.

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