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

Annotations only declare it is a non-destructive, closed-world write; the description adds substantive context the annotations cannot: it returns a token used by every other tool, returns a claim link, requires human action to claim, and unclaimed sites are deleted after 30 days with the 14-day window starting at claim. That is exactly the lifecycle and auth context an agent needs.

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?

Roughly four short sentences, front-loaded with what is created, followed by return values, the human handoff, and the lifecycle constraint. 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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by naming the two return values (token and claim link) and their use. Combined with the deletion/claim timing, an agent has everything needed to call it and act on the result.

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 single `name` parameter is documented as 'The business's name', so the schema carries the semantics. The description adds nothing about the parameter itself (e.g. whether it drives the slug), 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Make a new, empty site') plus the immediate outcome (live at https://<slug>.miow.me), which cleanly separates it from siblings like write_site, import_site, and get_site. An agent knows exactly what this creates 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?

Explicitly routes the follow-up action: 'Then fill the site with write_site,' and implies the tool is a first step in a workflow. It does not say when to prefer import_site over create_site, so the alternative selection is not fully covered.

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