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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the returned facets, and importantly the indexing caveat that a freshly imported/graduated site may still be indexing, mirroring list_pages. It doesn't describe pagination or result-size behavior, but the added indexing nuance is valuable.

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-loads the return shape, then usage triggers, then the indexing caveat. Dense but every clause earns its place; the enumeration is long but serves the missing output schema.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating what is returned (layouts, sections, counts, flags, redirects, menu groupings, collection placements) and adds the indexing timing caveat. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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 site, context and guestToken are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or semantics beyond that, which is the correct baseline when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 resource (site shape: layouts, sections, redirects, menus, collections) with concrete attributes like page count and staged-change flags. It explicitly distinguishes itself from list_pages by promising structure 'without listing every page', so an agent can route without opening a schema.

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 three concrete usage triggers ('is my layout missing', 'what does this section reach', 'where does this menu show') and implies the list_pages alternative via 'without listing every page'. It stops short of naming the sibling tool or stating when NOT to use it, so it's clear context rather than explicit routing.

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