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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond them by labeling the call "lightweight" (cheap to poll repeatedly) and framing it as a polling primitive. It stops short of noting any rate limits or what status values look like, though the output schema covers return shape.

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 sentences with zero padding: the payload contents are front-loaded, then the usage loop, then the sibling escape hatch. Every clause earns its place.

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 single-parameter read tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies everything needed: what it returns, when to poll it, and where to go for more detail.

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 100% with a single required site_name parameter already documented as "Name of the site". The description adds no further meaning about the parameter (format, accepted values), so the baseline of 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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource ("Lightweight status check") and immediately enumerates the returned fields (status, version, URL), which distinguishes it from the broader get_site_details sibling without opening either 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?

It states the concrete use case — poll this to follow a deployment started with deploy_site/redeploy_site until it finishes — and explicitly routes the agent to get_site_details when full details are needed. Both the when and the alternative are named.

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