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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the $1 USDC first-creation payment, retry and no-charge on PRICE_COMPUTE_FAILED, the need to poll preview_status/retry until live, alternative payment_url flow if the agent has no wallet, non-retry on failed settlement, and the human-sast-resort contact. That is rich, actionable behavioral transparency.

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 a single run-on paragraph of conditional instructions with no bullet, headings, or grouping by param/state/error outcome. Though most senteneces add information, the flow is hard to scan and the early 'Go live' sentence is a vagaa phrasing rather than a purposeful overview.

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 payment- and submission-related tool with no output schema, the description is surprisingly long some good, and behaves with existing failure modes, prerequisites, alternative payment flows, and retry behavior. It also covers the critical slug/URL and upload ID circumstances. It is short of completeness only because of the unclear core purpose and because 'email' is left undefined inline, though the required twomane is well covered.

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?

The schema descriptions are 0% covered, so the description must add the crucial semantics. It does a strong job for uploadId, explaining it must be the UUID from inspect and that a preview URL like https://publish.sornkan.com/preview/<uuid> should pa the UUID. It also clarifies slug via the live URL. However, the email parameter is not described at all and slug is only implied through the url, so the description does not fully compensate for int the absent schema documentation.

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 is mostly a procedural run-through ('Go live', payment, retries) and never states its primary action as a clear verb-resource sentence like 'Claims a chosen slug and makes it live.' It implies the resource (a slug at a worldsite subdomain plus optional CNAME) but relies on the tool name and workflow context to derive purpose. This is clearer than a tautology but still vague against siblings such as publish_website.

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 provides explicit operating conditions: 'Call preview_status first — if claimable is false, do not pay,' 'Ask which slug they want before paying,' 'retry this tool' on PRICE_COMPUTE_FAILED, and 'do not retry payment' on settlement failure. This is strong 'when and when-not' guidance, though it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as publish_website or connect_custom_hostname.

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