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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive annotations, it discloses authorization scoping (originating API key plus current domain read authority), the absence of cost or mutation side effects, and the semantic caveat that generation and client receipts are not evidence of verified publication. That is substantive context the annotations cannot carry.

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 and scope, and every sentence carries distinct information: scope, safety, result routing, semantic caveat, recovery. It is densely packed and the clause "Generation and client receipts are separate from verified publication" reads as jargon-heavy, costing some immediate legibility.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the single required parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description fills the remaining gaps an agent needs: authorization boundary, alternative tools for results and id recovery, and unsupported operations.

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 the schema already describes operation_id as a durable mutation receipt id or generation job id, so the baseline is high. The description adds the scope constraint that lookup is bound to the caller's API key and domain authority, which tells the agent why a valid-looking id may still fail, but it adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema.

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 verb ("Inspect") and a concrete resource ("operation summary") and enumerates the operation families covered (generation, draft, publication, backlink-handoff, link-check). It also explicitly separates itself from webanto_get_operation_result and webanto_list_operations, so an agent can route correctly without reading 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?

It states the exclusion directly ("Results are excluded; read them with webanto_get_operation_result") and gives a recovery path for a missing key ("Recover an unknown id with webanto_list_operations"). It also declares a hard limit ("cancellation is unsupported"), which prevents a plausible mis-invocation.

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