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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and a closed world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: the call returns in about 25 seconds (i.e. it is a bounded long-poll, not an indefinite block) and it enumerates the four observable states (generating, waiting for the person, published, failed), which tells the agent to poll rather than assume completion.

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?

Two tight sentences with the blocking behavior and the return content front-loaded, and no filler. The phrase 'says what to install' is slightly loose compared with the precise state list that follows, but the overall structure is efficient.

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-only polling tool with an output schema present, the description covers what the agent needs: it blocks, it returns within ~25s, and it reports one of four states. The output schema carries the return shape, so no further return-value detail is required.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, and the schema already explains that generation_id comes from create_previews. The description adds no syntax, format, or provenance detail beyond that, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('waits until the person has picked and published a design') plus the outcome ('says what to install'), so an agent can distinguish it from create_previews and the check_* siblings. It is clear but does not explicitly name or contrast with any sibling tool.

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 only implied: the fact that it blocks until a person acts, combined with 'then says what to install', suggests calling it after create_previews and before install. No explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative (e.g. check_site_previews) is given, so the agent must infer the sequencing.

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