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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fully discloses the deployment side effect, quota consumption (first 3/day free, then $0.10), payment options (x402 USDC or payment_url), and the fact that a successful claim resets the quota. This is transparent about costs, side effects, and state changes.

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 and dense, covering purpose, quota, payment options, alternatives, and follow-up steps. While every sentence carries useful information, it is not concise—a single-parameter tool could have been described more compactly. The structure is logical but feels verbose.

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 complex tool with quota, payment, and multiple siblings, the description is thoroughly complete. It covers prerequisites (uploadId from an upload), when to use it, side effects (deployment, quota), cost details, and even the next steps (ask for slug, then claim). Nothing critical appears missing.

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 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It implies that uploadId comes from a prior upload (references upload_url and claimable) and explains the usage flow. However, it never explicitly defines uploadId as 'the identifier returned by upload_url', leaving a slight inference gap. Still, it adds meaningful context beyond a bare string type.

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 specific resource (a throwaway preview Worker at preview-*.worldsite.workers.dev). It clearly differentiates itself from siblings like scan (free, nothing deployed) and preview_status (just reads remaining time), so an agent can tell them apart without opening schemas.

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 explicitly instructs when to use this tool ('call inspect only when the human wants to see a preview'), when not to ('Do NOT inspect again just to read remaining time — use preview_status'), and names alternatives (scan for iterating, upload_url again if claimable is false). This leaves no ambiguity about tool selection.

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