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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two useful facts: the call requires an authenticated session and HTML is an opt-in extra, but it omits polling/cursor behavior and cost/latency implications of including HTML.

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?

A single tight sentence with the core action front-loaded and the conditional qualifier trailing. It wastes no words, though at this length it is arguably under-specified rather than concise.

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?

Output schema and annotations cover the return shape and safety profile, and the schema documents all parameters. Still, for a polling-status tool with several near-identical siblings, the description lacks the disambiguation an agent needs to call the right tool on the first try.

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 all three parameters are documented, including the runId source (create_site) and cursor semantics. The description only echoes the includeHtml condition, adding little beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Check an authenticated website build'), which is clearer than the bare name. However it never distinguishes itself from the sibling iter0_check_site, whose title/name suggests an overlapping purpose, leaving the agent to guess which to call.

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?

'request HTML only when needed' gives one conditional usage hint for includeHtml, implying a poll-then-fetch pattern. But there is no guidance on when to use this versus iter0_check_site, iter0_publish_status, or iter0_get_design_set_status, all of which could plausibly answer 'is it done?'.

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