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

Annotations only declare the generic safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=false). The description adds the traits that actually matter: no data is saved, it consumes a few LLM calls, it takes 15-40 seconds, the preview option adds ~1 minute and DataForSEO spend, and it fails on already-registered or social/platform domains. The readOnlyHint=false flag is consistent with the disclosed side effects (spend, LLM calls) rather than a data mutation.

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?

Front-loads the tool's role ('Step 1 of adding a site'), then returns, then cost/latency, then failure conditions, then the follow-up call. Every sentence carries new information with no padding.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description enumerates the returned artifacts (business description, audience and tone options, competitor domains, business type, search market, locations), covers cost, latency, and failure modes, and names the successor tool. Nothing needed to call it 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description nonetheless adds quantified meaning to includeKeywordPreview (about a minute of extra time plus DataForSEO spend) beyond the schema's vague 'slow, spends credits', though it says nothing extra about the domain or the description override parameter.

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 ('Crawls a domain that is not yet set up'), positions itself as 'Step 1 of adding a site to Blawgy', and enumerates exactly what it returns. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling create_site, which it names.

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 workflow guidance ('Review or edit the suggestions, then call create_site'), explicit failure conditions (domain already registered, or a social/platform site), and a conditional for the optional preview parameter. When-to-use, when-not-to-use, and the next step are all present.

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