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

The description goes beyond the sparse annotations by explaining post-creation behavior: the connection already covers the new site, and installing the script tag is the only setup needed. It also discloses that the response includes ready-made privacy policy wording and advises confirming with the owner before editing visitor-facing pages. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 three sentences, each earning its place: core action, setup implication, and response guidance with a necessary safety note. It is compact and logically ordered, though the second sentence could be marginally tighter. Overall, no filler.

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 create operation, the description covers the key behavioral expectations: new site creation, script tag retrieval, connection status, and the privacy policy content in the response. An output schema exists to document return values, so the description doesn't need to explain the full response structure. It gives enough context to call correctly and know the next step.

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 provides 100% description coverage for both required parameters (name and domain). The tool description does not add further parameter-specific meaning; it focuses on tool behavior. Since the schema carries the parameter documentation burden, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Create a new site on this account and get its script tag.' It clearly identifies the action and distinguishes it from siblings like delete_site and list_sites. The mention of getting the script tag adds specific output-related purpose beyond just creation.

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 first sentence makes the usage context clear: use this when a new site is needed on the account. The additional note that the connection already covers the new site and only the script tag needs installing clarifies the setup implications. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the resource-focused purpose makes when-to-use unambiguous.

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