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

Adds real context beyond annotations: 'Slow' discloses latency, and 'Nothing is saved' reconciles the readOnlyHint=false annotation with the fact that no state is persisted, which prevents an agent from assuming it mutates settings. It does not mention auth or error behavior, but the key behavioral facts for a generator are covered.

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, each earning its place: what it does, how slow it is, and what to do with the output. The critical no-persistence warning is front-loaded before the follow-up instruction.

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, and the description explicitly handles the return value by telling the agent to feed it to update_settings. For a single-parameter generative tool, the combination of purpose, latency, persistence semantics, and follow-up action is complete.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the single 'site' parameter fully. The description's 'Reads the site' only implicitly ties back to that parameter and adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. 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?

Specific verb + resource: 'Reads the site and writes a business description.' It distinguishes itself from lookalike siblings (generate_titles, generate_outline, analyze_new_site) by naming the output artifact, a business description, and the fact that it is only a starting draft.

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 clear forward guidance: use the result by passing it to update_settings businessDescription. It explains the context of use (a starting point) but does not state when-not to use it or which sibling to pick for adjacent text-generation tasks, so it stops short of explicit alternatives.

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