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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so safety is covered; the description adds real value beyond that by stating that stored values are returned alongside resolved.email, that secrets are never returned, and that plan values are capacity rather than a feature ladder. It omits anything about response shape or error behavior, but the security and semantic caveats are meaningful additions.

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 core purpose and the sibling exclusion are correctly front-loaded, but roughly half the text is a pricing tier catalogue ($199/year, $99 expansion packs, free-tier quotas) that belongs to the billing/upgrade tools rather than to a read tool. The retention and plan_limit details justify some of it, yet the volume dilutes the actionable content.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned, what is deliberately withheld (secrets), and why plan fields return plan_limit values. Only the lack of guidance on error cases or ordering keeps it from being fully complete.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already explains that project_id comes from list_projects, create_project, or bootstrap_site. The description adds nothing about format or edge cases for project_id, so the baseline 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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ('inspect one website's settings') and enumerates the exact fields returned (domains, webhook URL, email templates, plan, usage, retention_days, branding). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from a sibling by ruling out list_forms, so an agent can route without reading either 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 a clear when-to-use (inspect a single site's config) plus an explicit when-not/alternative ('Do not use to list forms — call list_forms'), and redirects upgrade flows to create_upgrade_link. It does not distinguish from get_account or get_client, which the field list only implies, so it falls 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.