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

Goes well beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false) by disclosing the return payload (added, permission_level, verified), the fact that unverified properties return no data, that verification is currently manual per property type (DNS-TXT vs meta tag/HTML file), and the full error dictionary taxonomy (missing_permission/not_found/rate_limited/auth_error/http_error with message and hint).

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?

Front-loaded with the format requirement and error, then returns, then operational caveats. Efficient overall, though the return fields overlap with the existing output schema and the German phrasing packs several clauses into long semicolon chains.

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 mutation with an output schema and annotations already present, everything an agent needs is covered: input format, error surface, post-call state, and the manual verification gap with the follow-up tool to confirm status.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load and it does: site_url gets concrete syntax for both property types plus the failure mode, and workspace is described as a customer workspace slug that is optional when only one workspace exists.

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 ('Search-Console-Property anlegen') and immediately pins down both accepted URL forms ('https://example.com/' URL-Prefix vs 'sc-domain:example.com' Domain-Property), which is exactly what separates it from read-only siblings like sc_list_sites.

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?

Tells the agent what to pass, what happens when it is wrong (error=invalid_site_url), and routes post-creation status checks to sc_list_sites via permission_level. It does not explicitly say when NOT to use it (e.g. when the property already exists) or point at sc_verify_site/sc_verification_token, but the surrounding workflow context is clear.

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