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

Annotations already carry destructiveHint=true, but the description goes further by specifying exactly what gets destroyed ('source record and its embeddings'), declaring irreversibility ('not reversible'), and clarifying exact-match behavior. It also documents auth requirements and error conditions, adding substantial context beyond the structured annotations. No contradiction with annotations.

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 dense and front-loaded: core action first, consequences second, then auth/errors/related tools in a compact block. The only weakness is minor redundancy — 'matched by its exact url string' appears in both the first and third sentences.

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 destructive single-item delete with no output schema, the description is complete: it covers scope, irreversibility, exact-match requirement, auth modes, error codes, and sibling tool routing. An agent has everything it needs to call this tool correctly and safely.

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 both `url` and `appId` in detail, including the 24-char hex constraint, B2B requirement, and where to source the URL. The description's auth-mode sentence mostly restates the appId schema description rather than adding new parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Remove a single crawled URL from an app's RAG sources,' with exact-string matching semantics. It also distinguishes the tool from siblings by naming the B2B variant relationship and the batch tool (`ethora-sources-site-delete-url-v2-batch`), so an agent can tell it apart without opening 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?

The description explicitly routes the agent: get the stored URL from `ethora-sources-site-list-v2` before deleting, and use `ethora-sources-site-delete-url-v2-batch` for bulk-by-id deletion. It also specifies valid auth modes (app-token or B2B with explicit appId) and maps error codes (401/403/404) to causes.

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