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

Annotations already flag this as a non-read-only, destructive operation, and the description adds the specific side effect that explains that flag: it records 'agent' as the site's connection method, replacing the previously set one. It also discloses the published-design prerequisite. What is missing is any statement about whether the replacement is reversible or what happens on failure.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler, though the ordering is slightly off — the return value comes first and the side effect, arguably the most decision-relevant fact, is buried last. The quoted "agent" is a minor readability wrinkle.

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?

An output schema exists, so explaining return values is unnecessary, and the annotations cover the safety profile. The description supplies the prerequisite and the state-mutating side effect, which are the two things structured fields do not convey; only the hand-off to sibling workflow steps is absent.

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%, with both site_url and visits documented in the schema itself, so the description is not required to carry parameter meaning. It adds no syntax, format, or default details beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 states the specific resource returned: og:image and twitter:image tags for every page plus the image URL pattern. That is concrete enough to distinguish it from sibling tools like verify_install or check_site_previews, though it never names an alternative or reconciles the name 'get_install_instructions' with the tag-shaped output.

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 gives one real prerequisite ('Needs a published design'), which is genuinely useful context. However it says nothing about when this tool should be chosen over verify_install or wait_for_design, both of which sit in the same install workflow, so usage is only implied.

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