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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description doesn't need to establish that it mutates. It goes further and specifies what is destroyed ('clears the previous crawl state') and the normalization behavior for bare domains, which annotations cannot convey. Only gaps are return shape and any auth/permission constraints.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then normalization, then side effects and the required follow-up. No filler and every sentence carries operational information.

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 destructive, no-output-schema mutation tool this covers the important ground: what it sets, what it clears, and what to call next. Lacking only the return value / confirmation behavior, which for a setter is a minor omission.

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 67%, and the one underspecified parameter (website, which only carries maxLength in the schema) is precisely the one the description explains: bare-domain normalization example and empty-string clearing semantics. Adds real meaning beyond the schema for the key input.

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 ('Set (or clear) the tenant's business website URL') and immediately distinguishes itself from the sibling refresh_website by naming the follow-up action. An agent can tell exactly what this tool does and how it differs from nearby tools.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: 'call refresh_website afterwards to read the site (Brand-DNA enrichment + product import + image review candidates)', and tells how to clear via website: "". Both the when-to-use and the follow-up dependency are stated rather than implied.

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