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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive, so the description's real contribution is the 24-hour expiry and the no-index/private-link guarantee, plus the 'search engines are told to stay away' detail. Those are meaningful behavioral traits not captured anywhere in the structured fields. It doesn't clarify whether each call mints a new link or reuses one, though idempotentHint partially covers that.

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 core outcome (private link, 24 hours). The trailing 'Free.' is marketing copy that carries no decision value for an agent and slightly dilutes an otherwise tight description.

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 simple two-parameter read-only tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description supplies what the schema cannot: lifetime, privacy, and intended use. What it returns (the URL itself) is implied rather than stated, which is a minor gap.

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 both parameters (site, path) are documented there, including the home-page default for path. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, 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 conveys that the tool produces a private preview link to a draft site as it would appear published, which is a specific enough outcome to distinguish it from website_publish and website_get. It never states the verb directly ('preview'), relying on the title to complete the picture, but an agent can infer purpose without opening the 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?

'Open it, or send it to a person to check' gives concrete usage contexts (self-check or share for review). It stops short of explicitly contrasting with website_publish or view_link, so the agent must infer that this is a pre-publish step rather than the live artifact.

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