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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it returns a guide (not performing the setup), notes it is free, and describes the two setup options. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 concise sentences that front-load the purpose, list the options, and give clear next-step instruction. Every sentence earns its place with zero redundancy.

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 no parameters, the description is fully sufficient for an agent to decide when to call this tool and what to expect. It even mentions the two branches of the guide and the follow-up tools, making it a complete entry-point definition.

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?

There are zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline for no parameters is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific details because none exist, but it effectively conveys the tool's purpose without needing parameter context.

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 it returns a guide for connecting a custom-built website so articles get published, with specific frameworks mentioned. It distinguishes itself from action tools by being the guide that precedes them, and names the two options (hosted blog vs webhook) within the description.

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?

Explicitly says to call it first when the user asks to plug, connect or integrate a website, then follow its steps with the tools it names. This provides clear when-to-use guidance and implies alternatives (the actual setup tools) are used after following the guide.

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