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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden, and it does so thoroughly. It discloses the live URL format, the difference between preview URL and UUID for claim, the PRICE_COMPUTE_FAILED retry behavior, and the payment settlement exception. It also warns to never put the zip in chat, which is non-obvious behavioral context.

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?

Every directive earns its place and the paragraph is information-dense, but the arrow-style workflow is crammed into a single paragraph. The high content value makes it acceptable, though a numbered flow would be easier to parse.

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?

Given the tool has no annotations, no output schema, and a non-trivial orchestration flow, the description is unusually complete. It covers the required order, the error condition for retry, the only payment-failure exception, the exact CNAME workflow, and the live URL pattern. An agent has enough information to execute the flow reasonably safely.

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 tool declares zero input parameters, so the schema-based baseline is already sufficient. The description adds workflow-level context about artifacts like previewUrl and slug, but since there are no formal parameters, this is not a liability.

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 starts with a clear verb and resource ('Publish a website') and then details the full pipeline. It effectively distinguishes this high-level orchestrator from its siblings by naming the underlying components (upload_url, inspect, claim) as steps in this tool's workflow.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: always ask the human first, retry claim on PRICE_COMPUTE_FAILED, do not retry signed payment failures, and do not re-inspect just for the clock. This equips an agent to decide next actions without guessing.

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