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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and the description echoes 'free, read-only', so safety is covered. The real added value is the warning that hosting 'active' isn't proof the app works and that a false `verified` with `verifyWarning` means the page looks broken — post-call interpretation guidance the annotations cannot supply. It stops short of describing polling cadence or state transitions.

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 resource and module list, then the polling trigger, then the caveat, then a docs link. Dense but every clause carries information; slightly overstuffed with an ellipsis list and a trailing URL.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description partially compensates by naming the modules returned, the 'next step' field, and the `verified`/`verifyWarning` semantics. An agent can call and interpret this confidently, though the exact response shape per module remains unspecified.

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 only 50%: `id` has a description ('Same as projectId') but `projectId` has none, and the tool description says nothing about either parameter. With low coverage the description should compensate, and it does not — an agent must infer that the two UUIDs are interchangeable aliases.

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 concrete resource (a project's status) and enumerates the module dimensions it reports (hosting, compute, domain, email, stripe) plus the next-step output. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like account_status, project_overview, and check_health.

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?

Explicitly says when to call it — poll after provision_hosting, redeploy, provision_domain, provision_email, or connect_stripe — which is exactly the lifecycle context an agent needs. No exclusions are given, but the trigger set is precise.

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