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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds useful context beyond that: what exactly is removed (the seo.hidden metafield), the consequence (indexing/sitemap), and that it is a high-value fix. It stops short of noting reversibility or permission requirements, but the annotation coverage lowers the burden.

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 action and effect, then the detection source, then the safety gate. Each sentence carries weight, though the 'highest-value fixes' phrasing is slightly editorial 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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, and the description fully covers the action semantics, detection path, and the key prerequisite. For a single-parameter tool this is complete.

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 single resourceId parameter is already documented as coming from list_resources (seoHidden) or get_page_seo. The description restates that list_resources reports seoHidden, adding little beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 names a precise verb (remove the 'hidden from search engines' flag) and the exact mechanism (the seo.hidden metafield) on a single page, plus the downstream effect (indexable, reappears in sitemap). This clearly distinguishes it from its many sibling mutation tools like update_meta_tags or create_redirect.

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?

It explicitly states the precondition for use – 'Only do this when the merchant confirms the page SHOULD be public' – which is a real when-not rule, and points to list_resources and get_page_seo as the way to detect the hidden state. Nothing about when to invoke it is left implicit.

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