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

Annotations only declare the generic safety profile; the description adds substantial behavior: quota semantics (first 3/day free, then $0.10), the two payment paths (x402 retry with USDC on Base, or hand the 402's payment_url to the human), and the edge case for claimable=false (re-upload, do not pay for the old id). This is far beyond what readOnlyHint/destructiveHint convey.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action in the first sentence, and the dense billing/retry detail is all actionable rather than filler. It runs long, and the pricing/retry mechanics could be tightened, but no sentence is wasted.

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 side-effecting, quota-metered deploy tool with no output schema, the description covers the risk surface an agent needs: cost, quota reset, the 402 retry path, and the claimable=false fallback. Only the exact success/failure response shape is unstated, which is a minor gap.

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% and there is only one parameter, so the schema already documents uploadId fully. The description reinforces the source ('from upload_url') but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Deploys a throwaway preview Worker at preview-*.worldsite.workers.dev') and explicitly frames it as the DEPLOY step, distinguishing it from scan (free, nothing deployed) and preview_status. An agent can tell exactly what this does and how it differs from every nearby sibling despite the misleading 'inspect' name.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use ('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 names the alternative for iteration (scan, free, nothing deployed). The post-approval workflow (ask slug, then claim with UUID and slug) is also spelled out.

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