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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, establishing that this is a safe read operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations: the account scope, the explicit exclusion of billing/purchase data, and the nuance that each websiteOverrides entry applies only to its matching linkId.

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 composed of three purposeful sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and then adds scope and response nuance. The first sentence is a somewhat long enumeration of checks, but each listed item meaningfully contributes to specifying what the tool reports.

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 zero-parameter, read-only capability check with an output schema, the description is complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly. It states what the tool reports, explicitly excludes billing/purchase information, and clarifies the websiteOverrides behavior. The agent can predict the response semantics without additional assumptions.

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?

The input schema has no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify about inputs. The description appropriately focuses on the meaning of the response instead, explaining what capabilities are included and how websiteOverrides behaves. This fits the baseline for a zero-parameter tool.

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 uses a specific verb ('Checks') with a clear resource ('publishing availability for the connected Carryo account') and enumerates the concrete dimensions it covers, such as remaining capacity, reset timing, and allowances. This clearly distinguishes it from the website.* siblings, which operate on individual websites rather than the account level.

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 gives clear context for when the tool would be relevant—checking account-level publishing capabilities—and notes that it excludes billing or purchase information. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over sibling tools like website.publish or website.read, nor does it name alternatives; the usage context must be inferred.

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