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

The readOnlyHint=true annotation already establishes that this is a safe read, and the description is consistent with that. It adds useful output context ('as a card', build-status flag) but says nothing about failure cases, e.g. what happens if the site doesn't exist or the owner_key is wrong.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource and the return hook come immediately. The phrasing 'a Hostlet site or AI the user made' is slightly loose but costs little.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys what comes back (a card plus build status). However, with zero schema coverage it leaves both identifiers — particularly owner_key — undefined, which is the main remaining gap.

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 0% and the description never mentions either parameter. 'site' (name? id? slug?) and especially 'owner_key' are entirely unexplained, so the agent gets no help on how to form a valid call beyond the required field names.

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 gives a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('a Hostlet site or AI the user made'), plus a distinguishing detail: it returns build completion status. It reads clearly against mutating siblings like change_site, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no routing to alternatives such as ask_site or change_site. The phrase 'whether it is finished building' implies a status-check use case, but the agent must infer it.

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