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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe, repeatable, self-contained read; the description adds nothing about caching, versioning, or size of the returned guide. Its only behavioral-adjacent content is the topic mapping, which is parameter semantics rather than behavior.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the return value, then the trigger, then the enum disambiguation. Nothing is padded; the semicolon-separated topic gloss keeps the mapping compact.

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?

An output schema exists, so return format need not be described, and the one optional parameter has a default. The only shortfall is that five of the seven enum values rely on the reader's inference rather than being glossed like "developers" and "modules".

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% but the schema text is only "Default all.", so the description carries real weight by decoding two non-obvious enum values: "developers" (uploads, builds, redirects, API connections) and "modules" (live parts). It leaves the remaining five values (all, design, blocks, editing, seo) undescribed, assuming their self-evidence.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ("Returns Ginta's building guide") and enumerates the covered subject areas: site model, design brief, functional blocks, SEO. That scope is unmistakably documentation, so an agent can separate it from data-fetching siblings like get_site, get_stats or list_sites without inspecting any schema.

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?

"Use before building or editing a site" gives explicit timing and ties the tool to a concrete task class (create_site / update_site / manage_site work). There is no when-not guidance or note about whether repeated reads are needed, but the positive trigger is unambiguous.

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