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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing cost ('free... uses no credits'), the non-gating behavior ('never blocks anything'), finding ordering ('most important first'), and truncation signaling. These are traits the readOnly/idempotent hints cannot convey.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then cost, then findings, then return shape and fix path; nearly every sentence carries information. Slightly long, and 'the result says if the list was cut' overlaps with the existing output 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 single-param, read-only, closed-world check tool with annotations and an output schema, the description covers trigger, cost, finding categories, ordering, truncation, and the remediation path. Nothing needed to invoke 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?

Only one parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents designId and its provenance. 'Pass the designId' in the description adds nothing beyond the structured field, which is the expected baseline here.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Check a saved site') plus the trigger ('before the person shares it'), then enumerates the exact classes of problems it detects. An agent can tell this apart from iter0_get_site_status, iter0_publish_status or iter0_get_canvas_feedback without opening a 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 a clear when-to-use ('before the person shares it') and names the follow-up path (iter0_edit_site, which quotes its price first). It also rules out a misuse by saying 'It never blocks anything', but there is no explicit statement of what this tool is not for versus e.g. get_site_status.

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