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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: it is the tool that lets the user actually SEE the built site, and it warns about stale-version rendering during active builds and custom-domain address preference. There is no contradiction with 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?

The description is longer than a one-liner but every sentence earns its place: purpose, timing, exclusion, and address rules are all packed in without filler. The main action is front-loaded and the operational constraints come after, which reads naturally for an agent.

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?

Given that an output schema exists and annotations cover the read-only safety profile, the description supplies the missing operational context: when to call, when not to call, and which URL to present. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this tool correctly is missing.

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?

The input schema covers both parameters (app_id and context) with descriptions, so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not add param-level meaning beyond the schema; its address guidance concerns output behavior rather than parameter semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it shows the finished-site card (screenshot, name, live address) and returns plain details (name, slug, URLs, dates, status). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by calling itself the ONE tool that renders the finished-site card, so an agent can tell it apart from get_screenshot and check_task.

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?

The description gives explicit when-to-use guidance: call once after a build/edit has deployed and check_task reports deployment_status deployed, and also use it for plain details. It gives a clear exclusion: never call it while a build is still running, because it would show the previous version as if it were the new one. It also specifies address selection behavior (custom_domain vs. slug host), leaving no ambiguity.

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