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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false; the description adds the important behavior on top: auth requirement, that changed text replaces the old and the draft is rebuilt, and that a down site retains prior content. These are exactly the side-effect and failure-mode details an agent cannot infer from structured fields.

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?

Front-loads the access constraint and trigger, with no filler sentences. It is dense and packs annotations like the parenthetical `read_at` reference into one paragraph, which is efficient but slightly heavy to parse.

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-optional-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers who can call it, when to call it, what it changes, failure behavior, and the implicit background cadence. Nothing an agent needs before invoking it 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 description coverage is 0% and the single `source_id` property is undocumented in the schema, but the description compensates fully: 'source_id: one source; omitted: every website source' defines both the value meaning and the default for omission.

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?

Uses a specific verb and resource ('Read the business's website sources again now') and states scope (owners only, per-source or all sources). The reference to `receptionist` and its `read_at` field ties this operation to a concrete object an agent can recognize.

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 an explicit trigger ('when the owner says the site changed or one was read long ago') and a when-not-needed signal ('websites are also read again by themselves after a week'), so an agent knows not to call this gratuitously. Ownership/sign-in gating is stated up front.

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