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

Discloses latency ('slow, up to a minute'), side-effect scope ('only proposes; nothing is written or published'), return contents, and plan gating — well beyond the annotations. There is mild tension with readOnlyHint=false, but the write happens to detection state rather than published content, so it reads as clarification rather than contradiction.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action, then side effects, then cost and eligibility. No filler and every clause carries decision-relevant information.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description states what is returned ('the detection summary and the refreshed list'), plus timing, side effects, and access requirements. Nothing an agent needs to call this safely 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% and the single 'site' parameter is fully documented, including the allowed value. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline of 3 for a well-covered schema 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 concrete verb and resource ('Re-run update detection') plus the data source (latest Search Console data), and contrasts it with the automatic weekly run and autopilot path. An agent can distinguish it from list_update_opportunities or get_updates_overview 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?

Clearly says when to use it (you want detection refreshed right now) and implicitly when not (the weekly run already does this; autopilot also writes and publishes). It adds the Pro+/grandfathered eligibility constraint, though it does not name a specific sibling to call instead for merely reading opportunities.

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