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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: credentials and tokens are never returned, and it clarifies the scope (organization-level integrations plus the website's Search Console connection). It doesn't describe pagination or response shape, but the output schema exists and the added context is meaningful.

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 information-dense but well-organized: it front-loads what is listed, then gives the use case, then exclusions and alternatives. It is longer than strictly necessary, but every sentence earns its place by adding routing or behavioral context. The structure is logical and scannable.

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 read-only list tool with one optional parameter, an output schema, and strong annotations, the description is complete. It covers what is returned, the use case, the key exclusion (no credentials/tokens), the conditional parameter usage, and the relevant sibling tools. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 documents website_id well. The description adds context beyond the schema by explaining when to pass website_id ('when the account has several websites') and pointing to get_account as the source. This is a small but useful addition over 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 clearly states the tool lists CMS, e-commerce, webhook integrations and the Google Search Console connection, with specific attributes (provider, connection status, auto-publish, draft-mode flags, publishing targets). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming connect_custom_webhook and create_hosted_blog as alternatives for connecting, and get_account for website_id context.

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: 'Use it to know where articles get published and whether Search Console analytics are available.' It also provides exclusions: credentials/tokens are never returned, and it names alternatives for connecting integrations (connect_custom_webhook, create_hosted_blog) and notes other integrations are connected/disconnected in the app. It also gives a conditional usage rule: pass website_id when the account has several websites.

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