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

Annotations cover the mutation/safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false), and the description adds substantial context beyond them: the Pro gating, the password rule with an explicit 'never invent a password or repeat it' safety instruction, endpoint-to-component linking with incidents and latency enabled, and the rollback behavior ('if a later step fails, the new page is deleted'). That rollback note is exactly the kind of consequence disclosure the annotations do not carry.

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?

The description is dense and front-loaded, with the core action first and constraints after. Every sentence carries information, though the middle sentences are tightly packed with clauses and could be slightly more scannable.

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 helpfully enumerates the return values (slug, publicUrl, component ids, linked check ids) and discloses the rollback on failure, covering the main things an agent needs. It is nearly complete for this tool, with only the trivial parameters and any rate-limit or auth-token expectations left unstated.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does for the non-obvious parameters: password rules, visibility enum implication, custom_domain hostname format, and endpoint_ids side effects. It leaves url, name, and slug unexplained, but those are largely self-evident, so the gap is minor rather than disqualifying.

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+resource ('Create a public status page') and elaborates on the key fields, so the agent knows exactly what is being made. It does not explicitly name a sibling (e.g. update_status_page or create_component) to contrast with, which keeps it just below a 5.

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?

Conditional prerequisites are stated clearly: internal visibility requires Pro plus a user-typed password, and custom_domain requires Pro. What is missing is an explicit 'use this instead of update_status_page when…' routing sentence, so usage is well-contextualized but not fully comparative.

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