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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description usefully adds that the live site stays unchanged, the preview is a non-public random URL, BLOCKING aborts the preview, and the automated check inlines Google Fonts/CDN/stock photos and wires forms. However, the description frames this as a read-ish check while readOnlyHint=false, and the side-effect of actually hosing files at a new URL is only implied, leaving a minor tension rather than a clear contradiction.

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 before the process guidance, and every sentence carries operational value (preview URL, warning categories, BLOCKING branch). It is dense and multi-sentence but not padded.

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?

No output schema, yet the description compensates by describing what the report contains (Impressum/Datenschutz, fields without name, external services) and how BLOCKING should be handled. An agent has everything needed to call it and act on the result.

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 both parameters (domain, deploy_id) are documented in the schema, including the deploy_id origin from deploy_begin. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 + stellt bereit) and resource (einen offenen Deploy) with a concrete outcome (preview URL) and explicitly contrasts with the live site and with deploy_publish. An agent can distinguish it from deploy_begin/deploy_publish without opening any schema.

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 ordering (after uploading all files, ALWAYS call deploy_preview first), the follow-up actions (show link, name warnings, offer fixes), and the condition that gates the alternative (deploy_publish only after explicit user approval). Also handles the BLOCKING branch with clear remediation steps.

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