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

Goes well past the annotations: it warns that the page is public the instant it is created (a side effect the openWorldHint flag alone doesn't convey), details the idempotency contract (same plan id returns the first result, never a second page) rather than merely asserting idempotentHint, and states the return payload. No contradiction with the declared write/idempotent/non-destructive profile.

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-loaded with the triggering condition, followed by return value, safety side effect, idempotency, and the anti-pattern in separate short sentences. Each sentence carries distinct decision-relevant 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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by describing what is returned (the public address and page content). For a 2-parameter write tool with full annotation coverage, this leaves nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly.

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 including the 'show it to the user first' instruction for confirm. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by tying plan_id to the idempotency behavior, which explains why reuse is safe. Modest but real added value on top of a fully documented schema.

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 ('create_status_page') and immediately scopes it to a confirmed plan_status_page plan. It distinguishes itself from the same-family siblings plan_status_page, get_status_page and update_status_page, so an agent can route correctly without opening any 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?

Gives an explicit precondition ('when the user has confirmed a plan_status_page plan, including publishing it') and an explicit exclusion with the alternative named ('Not for changing an existing page: use update_status_page'). Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are covered.

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