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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so 'It changes nothing' mainly reinforces existing structure. The genuinely additive disclosure is the failure semantics: a domain that isn't this organization's or isn't verified returns not found, which tells the agent how to interpret an empty/negative result rather than retrying.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the resource scope and then the returned fields before the edge-case behavior. 'It changes nothing' largely restates the readOnly annotation and is the one sentence that does not fully earn its place, but it costs little.

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?

With one parameter and no output schema, the description must carry the return-value burden, and it does: it names the three things the response conveys. Missing only the shape of the finding count or freshness timestamp (absolute vs. relative), a minor gap for a single-domain status lookup.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the schema gives only a regex, length bounds, and the name 'domain' with no meaning attached. The description compensates by constraining the value to a verified domain belonging to this organization, though it never shows an example form (bare hostname vs. URL vs. subdomain), leaving some format ambiguity.

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 names a specific resource scope ('one of the organization's verified websites') and enumerates what the status comprises: Google Search Console/Analytics connection, last data refresh, finding count. That clearly separates it from the sibling list tool webops_list_websites, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by the singular scope ('for one of ... websites') and by the precondition that the site must be organization-owned and verified, with a not-found answer otherwise. There is no explicit direction such as 'use this when you already know the domain; use webops_list_websites to discover domains,' so the agent must infer the routing.

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