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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=false, openWorld=true. The description adds substantive context: live site unchanged, random non-discoverable preview URL, a report with specific warning categories, and that the automatic check locally embeds Google Fonts, CDN libraries, and stock photos while wiring forms.

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-loads the purpose in the first sentence, then provides workflow constraints and failure handling. Every sentence carries actionable information needed for correct invocation, and the length is justified by the multi-step deploy workflow.

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 explains what the generated report contains, how to react to warnings, and what BLOCKING means for next steps. It gives the agent enough operational context to call the tool and handle its results correctly.

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 100%, and the schema already documents both domain and deploy_id. The description adds no additional meaning about these parameters, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 'prüft' and action 'stellt bereit' with the resource 'Vorschau-Adresse', and explicitly notes the live website remains unchanged, distinguishing it from deploy_publish. An agent can immediately tell what this tool does and what it does not do.

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 when/when-not instructions: always call deploy_preview after uploading files, show link, mention warnings, offer to fix, and only call deploy_publish after explicit user approval. Also defines BLOCKING behavior and the required follow-up steps.

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