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

Annotations already declare idempotent, non-destructive, non-open-world behavior, and the description adds context not in the annotations: the account-token requirement, the prerequisite that the site must already be claimed, and 'Does not charge' (billing impact). It still doesn't state whether the change is reversible from the tool itself or how search engines ack the request.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the auth note and the core action, then the mode values, then the prerequisite and billing note. No filler.

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 two-parameter tool with full schema coverage and annotations covering safety, the description supplies the remaining essentials: auth, prerequisite state, mode meaning, and cost. Nothing critical is missing, though a note on latency or propagation of the search-engine change would make it fully complete.

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 enum values are already documented in the schema, including what allow vs noindex mean. The description's 'mode is allow or noindex' simply restates that, adding no new syntax or format meaning beyond the structured data.

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?

Specific verb and resource: it tells search engines to skip a claimed site or to list it again, which is a distinct action from siblings like claim_site, delete_site, or update_site_settings. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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?

Gives the key precondition ('Claim the site first') and names the two mode outcomes, so the agent knows when the call is valid and what each mode selects. It does not name a sibling alternative or an explicit when-not-to-use condition, which keeps it short of a 5.

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