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

Although readOnlyHint and destructiveHint already signal safety, the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: the published field includes the live URL, customDomains lists apex and www separately and is empty when none, and displayFlootLogo depends on paid status. It also discloses side-behavior of sibling publish/republish tools.

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?

The description is long but information-dense, with the return snapshot front-loaded and usage guidance following. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no filler or repetition of annotation fields.

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?

With no output schema, the description thoroughly explains all return fields: published, customDomains, paid, and displayFlootLogo. It also supplies the exact situations in which the tool should be called, making it fully actionable for an agent.

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?

The only parameter, projectId, has no schema description and the tool description does not explicitly explain its format or source. The name alone makes it reasonably inferable, but with schema coverage at 0%, the description does not fully compensate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Read-only publish snapshot for a project' and then enumerates exactly which fields are returned. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by declaring it is 'the ONLY tool that reports attached custom domains.'

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?

Usage is explicit: 'read it before telling a user whether their domain is connected' and 'check it before publishing.' It even names alternatives and their error conditions, e.g. 'publish_app errors when the app is already published (use republish_app then).'

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