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

Annotations are sparse (only readOnlyHint=false), so the description carries the burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: the site starts empty, pages must be added via a sibling tool, and the home page convention (slug 'index') is documented. Could mention persistence/auth/rate-limit side effects of a mutation, but for a create operation the workflow disclosure is strong value-add beyond the structured data.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core verb+object, then two bits of high-value context (workflow next step, alternative tool). Zero waste — every clause adds information an agent couldn't infer from the name or schema alone.

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 2-parameter creation tool with an output schema and readOnlyHint=false annotation, the description is complete: purpose, workflow, and alternative tool are covered. The output schema covers return values, so no redundancy is needed there. Nothing material is missing for an agent to invoke this correctly.

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%, and the schema itself is unusually rich (name is 'not the domain', workspace_id explains single vs. multi-workspace error behavior). The description text doesn't repeat params, which is correct — with complete rich schema coverage, the baseline of 3 applies and the schema's own quality elevates it to a 4 since the agent gets complete param semantics from the combined picture.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Create a new multi-page website in the workspace.' The description explicitly distinguishes it from siblings by calling out multi-page vs. standalone landing page, naming create_page and add_page_to_site as the alternatives. This is exactly what a purpose statement should do.

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?

Explicit when/when-not/alternatives guidance: 'use add_page_to_site to build its pages' explains the forward workflow, and 'To make a single standalone landing page instead, use create_page' gives a direct alternative with reasoning. No ambiguity about which tool to pick.

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