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

Annotations already cover mutation safety (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), and the description adds genuine context beyond them: the work is queued rather than applied inline, no settings are altered, and a page-view limit can cause a no-op that is reported in the result. It stops short of auth or per-call rate details.

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 tight sentences: what it does first, then the non-mutation and single-domain constraints, then the failure mode. Every clause carries information an agent needs, and nothing is repeated from the schema.

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 one-optional-parameter queueing action with an output schema covering the return shape, the description covers purpose, scope, side-effect posture, and the one notable failure mode. Nothing an agent needs before calling it 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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter already documents the omit-for-default-domain behavior, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only reinforces the constraint ('one domain only') without adding syntax or defaulting detail beyond what is already structured.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Queues a rebuild of the cookie banner script') scoped to 'one of your CookiePal domains', and immediately separates it from settings-mutating siblings: 'It changes no setting'. An agent can distinguish it from customise_banner or set_banner_mode without reading schemas.

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?

It implies the right moment to call it ('so it picks up the settings saved for it') and states a hard constraint ('works on one domain only'), but it never explicitly names the alternative tool to use when you want to change settings rather than reapply them. Clear context, no named exclusion.

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