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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true. The description adds the state machine (has_website, started, skipped, not_needed), the side effect that a websiteUrl 'starts background extraction', the card-driven UI flow, and the explicit no-op condition — behavioral detail far beyond 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?

Long for a tool description, but the core purpose is front-loaded and each sentence encodes a distinct branch or guard condition rather than filler. Minor redundancy between the 'do not call again' and status-gating sentences keeps it from a 5.

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 explained, yet the description still enumerates the statuses an agent must branch on. For a zero-required-parameter orchestration tool with a card interaction, the description supplies everything needed to call it correctly.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantics: skip:true is tied to an explicit user decline and websiteUrl to a user-typed site, while cardId is acknowledged as system-only ('never set it yourself'). This clarifies usage conditions the schema descriptions state only tersely.

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 dual-mode verb (check or set) on a specific resource (the user's own website for the workspace), and explicitly distinguishes 'the user's own site, never a client's site'. An agent can tell it apart from get_profile or list_documents without opening a 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?

Gives explicit ordering ('always call with no arguments FIRST for every new document'), when NOT to call ('do not call this again' after card completion), and per-branch routing for each user response (typed URL, skip, card interaction). Nothing about invocation timing is left to inference.

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