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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: it deploys (a mutation), counts against a quota (first 3/day free, then $0.10), supports two payment methods, and resets quota on successful claim. It also warns about not re-inspecting for status and the consequences of paying for stale uploads. This is exceptional 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 long but information-dense. It front-loads the core purpose ('Deploys a throwaway preview Worker...') and then layers usage, costs, warnings, and next steps without redundancy. A few sentences could be tightened, but 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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers all necessary context: when to deploy, cost implications, payment methods, quota reset, and the transition to `claim`. It even handles edge cases (claimable=false) and recommends the correct alternative tool. Agents can confidently invoke it correctly without needing additional details.

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 has only `uploadId` with zero description coverage. The description does not explicitly define `uploadId`; it only hints that it originates from an upload ('upload_url again' and 'old id'). While the context implies it's the upload identifier, an agent might still be uncertain about its exact provenance and format. The description should have explicitly stated that this is the ID returned by `upload_url`.

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 states a specific verb ('deploys') and a precise resource ('throwaway preview Worker at preview-*.worldsite.workers.dev'), and explicitly contrasts it with `publish.sornkan.com`. It differentiates from siblings like `scan` (free, no deploy) and `preview_status` (only for remaining time), making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance ('call inspect only when the human wants to see a preview'), when-not-to-use ('Do NOT inspect again just to read remaining time — use preview_status'), and alternatives (`scan` for iterating, `upload_url` for claimable false). Even includes a warning about not paying for old IDs and directs the post-approval flow toward `claim`.

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