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

Goes well beyond the annotations by explaining that new sites are 24-hour trial sites, permanent sites require a paid plan, and if the plan has no room the tool returns plans and prices that the agent should relay. This discloses side effects and failure-path behavior that the non-destructive annotation alone does not.

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 front-loaded with the core action and then efficiently layers in the trial/paid-plan context and failure behavior. Every sentence carries useful information without repetition.

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 no output schema, the description adequately covers the important behavioral cases: success modes, trial limitation, paid-plan requirement, and the no-room response. It does not describe the normal success return shape, but the tool is simple enough that this 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 only 50%, but the description compensates by elaborating what 'permanent' and 'one_more_day' mean in context: new sites start on 24-hour trials, permanent requires a paid plan, and one_more_day extends by a day. projectId remains undocumented beyond its obvious name, which keeps this from a 5.

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+resource: keeping a project's hosted site online, with two explicit modes (permanent vs one more day). It clearly distinguishes the two modes but does not explicitly contrast with siblings like uichemy_publish_site, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 trigger conditions: call when the user wants the site to stay up, asks how to keep it, or it went offline. It does not name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, but the when-to-use guidance is clear.

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