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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses asynchronous behavior (returns a handle, status and links immediately while completion takes about a minute), the transient nature of the artifact, and explicit non-effects (no account created, nothing published). The health-information exclusion is a substantive domain guardrail not captured by any annotation.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with what is built, then what is returned and how long it takes, then the safety guarantees. No sentence is redundant and none restates the title or annotations verbatim.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by naming the return payload (preview handle, build status, links) and the async timing, plus side-effect guarantees. An agent has everything needed to call this and set expectations about latency and state.

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% for the single website parameter, so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds only mild framing ("a service business's public website"), which reinforces but does not extend the schema's own example.

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 ("Builds") and resource ("temporary front desk preview") and scopes the input as the business's public website, with content types enumerated (services, prices, hours, policies). It is unmistakably a create/build step rather than the sibling get_/ask_ tools, but it never names or contrasts those siblings explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: calling this is the obvious first step before get_front_desk_preview or ask_front_desk_preview. It gives useful boundaries ("Creates no account and publishes nothing", health-information exclusion) but never says when to prefer this tool or to run check_amfion_fit first, so the agent must infer the workflow.

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