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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful non-schema behavior: fields are only prefilled 'when given' and the email must never be requested in chat — a real interaction constraint. It stops short of describing the returned link format, so not a 5.

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?

Two sentences with no waste; the core purpose is front-loaded and the interaction rule about email follows logically. Every clause earns its place.

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?

For a link-generating tool whose annotations carry the safety profile and whose parameters are fully described in the schema, the description covers what the link does and the key chat-vs-page email distinction. Only the concrete return value (a URL) is left implicit, which is a minor gap.

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% and all three parameters are already documented, including that business_name is only supplied 'if the user gave it.' The description's mention of business name, trade, and city maps directly to those parameters but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the 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?

The description names a specific resource (a Pro Site draft start link) and states exactly what it contains — business name, trade, and city prefilled when provided. This distinguishes it from retrieval-oriented siblings like get_pro_site, though it does not name a sibling 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?

It implies usage (generating a link to start a Pro Site draft) and gives one strong contextual rule — the user enters email on the page, never in chat. However, it never states when to prefer this over siblings such as get_pro_site or pro_site_custom_domain, leaving the routing decision to inference.

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