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

Goes well past the readOnly/idempotent annotations: it warns that live blocks (agenda, speakers, booths, floor, FAQ, doors) hold no event data and self-populate, notes the personal connector token requirement, states it changes nothing, and explains that `servedBy` in the reply identifies which connector answered.

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?

Purpose and richest detail are front-loaded, and nearly every clause carries operational information. The opening sentence is long and clause-heavy, which costs a point on readability, but there is no filler.

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 read-only inspection tool with an output schema, the description covers what is missing from structured fields: the shape of the result, the empty live-block behavior, permission requirements, and connector selection. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is absent.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning: `page` defaults to the home page, and `full: true` returns the whole page design as JSON with image addresses omitted — a caveat the schema does not mention.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ('Gives the outline of one event website's DRAFT'), then enumerates exactly what the outline contains (pages, sections, rows, columns, blocks, theme). It is clearly distinguished from siblings site_list (ids), site_edit (writes by short id) and site_publish.

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?

States the access condition ('Only the organizer of the event can read it') and the connector rule for test-vs-live setups, and points to site_edit as the mutation counterpart. It does not explicitly say to call site_list first for a siteId, though the schema parameter note covers that.

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