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

Annotations flag destructiveHint=true, so the description's job is to explain the extent of that destruction: 'the draft and the kept versions stay' plus 'publishing again starts a new month' and 'Free' disclose what is preserved, how billing resumes, and that no charge is incurred. That is substantive context the annotations do not carry. It omits permission requirements, which keeps it from a 5.

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, no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, followed by preservation semantics and billing behavior. 'Free' is terse but earns its place as a cost clarification.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers action, reversibility, retention of drafts/versions, and billing restart — the details an agent needs to act and to report consequences. Missing only authorization/precondition details.

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% and the schema itself explains the name format ('as in cncto.co/w/<name>'). The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the 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?

States a specific verb and resource — 'Take the site offline' — plus a secondary effect ('end its rent'), which cleanly separates it from website_delete (removal) and website_publish (the inverse). An agent can identify the operation 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?

Implicitly defines the situation (site is live and should stop being live and billable), and the note about kept versions hints it is the reversible option versus delete. But it never names website_delete or website_publish as alternatives or states explicit preconditions such as the site being published.

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