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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, but the description adds material behavior the annotations cannot express: the site is created UNVERIFIED, the operation previews unless confirm is true, and the site is linked to a client. This is exactly the extra context that prevents a wrong invocation.

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 sentences, zero filler. Purpose first, then the input format, then the required follow-up and the preview caveat — ordered by what the agent needs to decide and then execute.

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 still tells the agent the resulting state (unverified), how to finish the job (verification tools), and that the default is a preview. Nothing needed to call this 3-parameter mutation correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 67% and the schema already illustrates both URL forms, but the description adds the semantic distinction between them ('https://example.com/ for a URL-prefix property, sc-domain:example.com for a Domain property') and ties the client parameter to list_clients and the linking behavior. Confirm is only implied via 'unless confirm is true'.

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 ('Add a site to Search Console') and immediately scopes it ('FOR one of this agency's clients, and link it to that client'), which no sibling tool does. An agent can distinguish it from gsc_query, gsc_list_sitemaps, and gsc_submit_sitemap without opening any 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 explicit when-to-use context and routes the agent through the follow-up sequence ('follow with site_verification_token and site_verify') naming both sibling tools. It also states the preview/confirm condition, so the agent knows the call is non-final by default.

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