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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds material behavior: it copies assets, rewrites links, carries on in background for large sites (import_status reports), and cannot carry over forms/logins/search/checkouts. This is exactly the context an agent needs beyond the structured fields.

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?

Four sentences, each earning its place: core action, legal constraint, async behavior, and limitation caveat. The purpose is front-loaded and there is no redundant prose.

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 complex tool with no output schema and sparse annotations, the description explains the asynchronous behavior, the limitation on dynamic features, and the need to report what couldn't carry over. It omits the file-replacement/rollback behavior (which the schema's site parameter covers), so the description is slightly incomplete but still sufficient for 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?

Schema covers all three parameters at 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's reference to 'Wayback Machine's saved copy' restates from_archive without adding new semantics; it does not clarify parameter format or edge cases beyond what the schema already provides. No credit is given for schema-covered information.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Copy') and resource ('an existing website ... into a Hostlo site'), enumerates the imported assets (pages, styles, scripts, images, fonts) and notes link rewriting. It distinguishes this tool from siblings by naming the source types (WordPress, static, Wayback) and implying the contrast with import_status, which reports on background imports.

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 clear when-to-use context: only import sites the person owns or has right to copy, and states the small-vs-large behavior that routes to import_status. It does not explicitly name alternatives like connect_repo vs import_site, but the guidance is sufficient for selecting this tool over reporting tools.

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