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

The description discloses real behavioural detail beyond the annotations: links expire after 60 minutes, anyone holding the link can view the version, and each call generates a new link (consistent with idempotentHint=false). It does not cover permission requirements for generating the link, but the expiry and access scope are the operationally important facts.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the core action and scope front-loaded and the expiry/access caveats immediately after. Every sentence carries distinct 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 two-parameter tool with annotations and no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient: it explains what the return value is (a link), its lifetime, and its access model. Only site_id semantics are left unexplained.

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 50%: version_id is documented in the schema and the description's "latest by default" merely restates that. site_id is undocumented in both places, and the description adds no meaning about what it identifies or how it constrains the call.

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?

"Creates a private preview link for a draft version" states a specific verb and resource with scope clarified by "the latest by default." Siblings are all website/account CRUD operations, so the intent is unambiguous, though no sibling is named as an alternative.

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?

The description implies the use case (previewing a draft before it is live) and notes the default version, giving clear context. However, it never states when not to use it or how it relates to sibling tools such as get_website or update_website.

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