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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world behavior, so the bar is low. The description adds real behavior beyond them: it returns suggested alternatives when the name is taken and it normalizes input ("Bella Roma" -> "bella-roma"), which the agent could not infer from the annotations.

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 sentence that leads with the usage trigger, then the output format, then the normalization rule. No filler and every clause carries information.

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 a rich annotation set, an output schema, and a single fully documented parameter, the description only needs to add the ordering constraint and normalization behavior, which it does. Nothing needed to call this tool correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and there is only one parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description goes further by showing how the name string is interpreted and transformed during normalization, adding meaning the schema's "Wanted name" text does not convey.

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 verb and resource (check whether a site name is available) and ties it to the concrete output address pattern https://<name>.ginta.page. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like create_site or get_site.

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 an explicit trigger and ordering: use before create_site when the user wants a specific address. It does not state when the check is unnecessary (e.g., auto-generated names) or name an alternative tool, but the sequencing guidance is clear and actionable.

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