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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses the queuing semantics (added=false when a read is already in line), the ten-minute per-site throttle via allowedAt, refusal of private addresses, and that an API key is required. These are exactly the behaviors an agent cannot infer from readOnlyHint/openWorldHint.

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?

Labeled sections (When / Instead / Inputs / Returns / Fails) front-load the action and routing decision, and every line carries distinct information with no filler.

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 compensates by naming the returned fields (job, added, allowedAt, ahead) plus the two failure modes. For a two-parameter job-creation tool this leaves nothing material an agent needs unstated.

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 both parameters are already documented. The description restates site as a domain like example.com and reason as 'what was changed, in a few words' with no added format, length, or required/optional detail. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the work.

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?

Uses a specific verb+resource ('puts a fresh read of a site in line') and immediately states it returns a job handle to follow. This clearly separates it from the read-inspection siblings and from a synchronous page check.

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?

Explicitly gives the trigger conditions ('once a fix is deployed, or for a site clickd has never read') and names two alternatives with the condition that selects each: clickd_changes for a queued job's results, clickd_check for a single live page with no read.

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