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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable stateful semantics: republish_required stays true until the claimed bucket is successfully republished, the connection token is one-time, and local vs hosted clients have different post-claim flows. This goes well beyond annotation data.

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 dense, purposeful sentences with no filler. The first sentence states purpose, the second captures the key stateful behavior, and the third provides an important operational warning about token handling and sign-up. Every sentence 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 two-parameter, read-only status tool with an output schema, the description covers prerequisites, state semantics, and post-claim workflows well. The only minor gap is that the 'authenticated Revdoku tool' for hosted clients is not explicitly named, leaving a small ambiguity in the workflow guidance.

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%, but the schema descriptions are only 'Value for preview id' and 'Value for update token' — placeholders. The description adds useful meaning by calling the preview 'anonymous' and the update token 'opaque', but it does not provide format, constraints, or additional parameter context beyond the schema baseline.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Check') and names the exact resource: an anonymous preview's publish or claim status, using preview id and opaque update token. This clearly separates the tool from preview create/update and bucket publish siblings.

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 clearly states when the tool applies — checking status via preview_id and update_token — and gives useful post-claim context about token exchange and hosted-client behavior. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or exclusion cases, but the use case is clear enough.

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