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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description is consistent with a non-mutating audit. It adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: the tool returns findings keyed by the id of the item to fix, which lets the agent chain directly into batch_edit_design. It omits any note on scope limits or cost, keeping it at 4.

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?

A single dense sentence with the purpose and the finding list front-loaded, followed by the routing to batch_edit_design. Every clause describes an actual detection category, though the enumeration is long enough to push against the brevity line.

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 usefully conveys what comes back (findings with fixable ids). The only real gap is that it says nothing about the required siteId or about what an empty/clean audit looks like.

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 0% and the sole required parameter (siteId) is never mentioned in the description; 'a Studio site' only weakly implies it. With one simple identifier parameter the gap is minor, but the description adds no syntax or format guidance beyond the 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 ('Check') and resource ('a Studio site') and enumerates the exact problem categories it detects (missing titles/descriptions, missing alt text, broken routes, etc.). An agent can distinguish this read-only audit from mutating siblings like batch_edit_design or publish without opening the 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 clear context ('before publishing') that signals when to run it, and explicitly routes results onward to batch_edit_design ('so the fixes can go straight into batch_edit_design'). It does not state when NOT to use it or what to do if the audit is unnecessary, so it stops short of full alternative coverage.

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