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

Annotations only declare the mutation/safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false), so the description carries the real behavioral burden and does it well: the secret is returned once and must be written to the app environment, never source code or chat. That is exactly the kind of consequence an agent must know before invoking. It omits what happens on duplicate names or whether sites can be recreated.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and every clause carries an operational instruction (secret handling, tag placement, verify endpoint, install link). It reads as a dense run-on mixing creation with integration steps, which slightly blurs the tool's scope, but there is little filler.

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 an output schema present and 100% schema coverage, the description needn't explain return values, yet it still flags that site_key is public and the secret is one-time. Combined with the annotations' mutation profile, an agent has enough to call this correctly; only failure modes are unaddressed.

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%, so the schema already explains watch_only, allowed_hostnames, email_checks_only and the rest. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, which is the baseline-3 case; nothing is lost because the schema is rich.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource: "Create a BurrowGuard site for a form." That is more specific than the sibling create_* tools (create_domain, create_sender, create_tenant) and an agent can tell what entity is produced. It stops short of explicitly distinguishing create from update_burrowguard_site or list_burrowguard_sites.

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 supplies a post-creation workflow (add script and tag, call POST /burrowguard/verify) and an install link, so the implied context is a form-protection setup. However, it never states when to pick this over sibling tools or mentions the watch_only first-week path as an alternative mode, so when-to-use guidance is only implied.

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