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

Annotations only provide generic false hints for readOnly and destructive, which don't add much. The description compensates by explaining the inline operation and its limits, but doesn't disclose details like authentication needs or what happens on failure. However, with annotations being sparse, the description does a decent job.

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?

The description is concise, front-loads the core purpose, and uses a clear alternative instruction within two sentences. No wasted words.

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?

The tool is moderately complex with 4 parameters and an output schema exists, so return values are covered. The description provides the key usage distinction and limits, but could mention that the operation is not idempotent (annotations already indicate false, but description doesn't add behavioral nuance). Overall, complete enough for correct invocation.

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 all parameters are already well-documented. The description adds minor context about the 'files' parameter (inline vs. upload) but doesn't go beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the verb 'create', the resource 'site', and the method (inline text files). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming specific alternatives like 'request_upload' for large/binary files. The mention of inline limits adds scope precision.

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 explicitly says when to use this tool vs. alternatives: 'For large or binary files, use request_upload without a site_id instead'. It also provides clear constraints (inline limit: 200 files, 1 MB per file) that inform usage.

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