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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and the trailing 'Read-only' is consistent rather than contradictory. Beyond that, the description discloses the return payload's topic coverage and the required workflow order, which matters given there is no output schema. Slightly redundant in restating read-only but adds real value.

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-loaded with the critical 'BEFORE creating a site' trigger, then flows through pre-fill → ask gaps → confirm → create. Dense but every sentence carries workflow instruction; the trailing 'Read-only' is mildly redundant against the annotations but does no harm.

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 compensates by enumerating the question topics returned and the design-method choice, and it ties the tool into the downstream creation flow. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and act on the result.

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% and both optional params (industry, user_goal) are fully documented there. The description adds only the marginal note that industry hints which questions matter most, which is already in the schema; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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+resource (get intake questions) and enumerates exactly what the payload contains: goal, audience, visual lane, tone, density, color direction, sections, must-haves, references, plus the design-method choice. It also distinguishes itself from the downstream create_site / create_site_from_design siblings, so an agent can place it correctly 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?

Explicit sequencing: 'BEFORE creating a site, call this' and 'Collect answers, THEN call create_site / create_site_from_design.' It also prescribes how to use the result (pre-fill inferable answers, ask only genuine gaps, show assumptions) and names the downstream alternatives, leaving nothing to inference.

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