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

Annotations already signal readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds the key side-effect statement: 'Changes Loomaly's log only, never the website.' It also explains the go-live anchoring and the default date, going beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 with no filler, and the core action plus constraints are front-loaded. It earns its length by adding context (14-day comparison, log-only side effect) rather than repeating schema 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 7-parameter write tool with no output schema, the description covers the when and why but omits the return value/acknowledgment and doesn't mention siteId's role. It's functional for calling the tool, but the missing output behavior and the unexplained required parameter leave gaps.

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 57% (about 4 of 7 properties described). The description adds value for shippedOn (default today), ref (commit or PR), and conversions (owner-counted before/after), but it never explains siteId, which is required, and adds little beyond the schema for page. With moderate coverage, this is adequate but not high.

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?

Clearly states the action ('Record'), the resource (a change that went live on a page), and the key data captured. The note 'records deployed changes, not drafts' distinguishes it from hypothetical draft-logging and no sibling tool overlaps with this action.

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?

The description gives clear context for when to use (a change that went live, anchored on go-live day) and what not to record ('not drafts'). It stops short of naming alternative tools, but the sibling set contains no competing logging tool.

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