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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real behavioral detail: output is conditional on supplying a claim_token or an owning API key, which unlocks file list, total size, live version, and claim link. It does not flag the unusual idempotentHint=false or note any rate limits, keeping it short of a 5.

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 tight sentences with no filler. The core status fields are front-loaded, followed by the conditional-auth behavior and then use cases, which is the right order for an agent scanning for relevance.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no prose explanation. Between the enumerated status fields, the auth-conditional behavior, and the usage scenarios, an agent has everything needed to decide and call 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 coverage is 100% and the schema already explains slug (including full-URL acceptance) and claim_token, so the baseline is 3. The description goes further by clarifying that an API key owning the site can substitute for claim_token and that this unlocks additional fields, adding auth semantics beyond the schema.

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?

The description names a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('a chorus.host site') and enumerates exactly what is reported: liveness, URL, password presence, and expiry. It also states the richer payload returned when a claim_token is supplied, so an agent can distinguish it from publish_site and get_docs 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?

Three concrete usage scenarios are given: confirming a publish worked, checking when an anonymous site expires, and seeing what is published at a slug. This routes the agent well relative to publish_site, though no alternative is named explicitly and there are no stated exclusions.

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