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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden and does deliver two genuinely useful facts: the result is a draft (not a live site) and every property is user-editable afterwards, which signals reversibility. It omits other material behavior: whether an account or payment is required (the version parameter carries monthly prices up to €49.95), whether a domain is actually registered, and whether anything is published. Those omissions matter for a creation tool with commercial implications.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, followed by the one reassurance the agent most needs (draft, editable later). Nothing is padded and no sentence is wasted.

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 nine-parameter creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition is thin. It never says what the call returns (site ID, URL, draft handle) even though there is no output schema to compensate, and it omits cost and account prerequisites that are central to a tool whose version options are priced. The draft/editability note is the only behavioral anchor.

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%, so every one of the nine parameters already has a description, enum, or default documented in the schema. The description adds only the hint that input should be plain language, which loosely maps to the free-text 'info' parameter. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema does all the parameter work.

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 and resource: 'Creates a new website or webshop draft', plus the input modality 'from a plain-language description'. That distinguishes it clearly from the read-only siblings (getFeatures, getPrices, supportSearch) without needing to name them. It stops short of a 5 only because it doesn't explicitly contrast itself with any alternative creation path.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no conditions under which the agent should prefer or avoid this tool. The phrase 'draft ... can be changed afterwards' implies a low-risk starting point, but that is inferred, not stated as usage direction. An agent gets no signal about account state, cost, or readiness before calling.

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