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

Adds substantive behavior beyond annotations: 15–60 second latency, cost ('free'), auth ('No account is needed'), the downstream lifecycle ('on the draft page the person can keep the website and later change it by chatting'), and supported languages. It stops short of stating that each call is non-idempotent and produces a separate new draft, or whether drafts expire or are publicly indexed, which the annotations alone can't convey.

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 purpose and output link, followed by latency, input modes, auth, and languages in a tight four-sentence block. Every sentence carries information; only the 'free'/'no account' points overlap slightly in emphasis.

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 correctly discloses the return value (a viewable link) and enough context to call it (input modes, latency, language, no auth). Minor gaps remain: behavior when neither input is provided, and whether the draft link is permanent or expires.

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%, so the enums, defaults and field meanings are already documented; the description mainly restates them (language list, description contents, website reuse). It adds one useful nuance by presenting the two inputs as alternatives, but leaves ambiguous what happens when neither optional parameter is supplied, which matters given zero required parameters.

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 artifact ('Builds a free draft website') plus the target segment (small local business with a parenthetical of examples) and the output ('returns a link where the person can view it'). An agent knows exactly what it produces without opening the 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?

Explicitly frames the two entry modes ('Give either a short description of the business ... or the address of its current website') and what each does, which is the routing decision an agent must make. No siblings exist to distinguish from, and no when-not-to-use case (e.g. non-local-business or enterprise sites) is stated, keeping this at 4.

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