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 value the annotations do not carry: that the link is public and that no authentication is needed. It stops short of describing the link's lifetime or format, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler, with the output (the link) front-loaded and the routing note immediately after. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple, read-only, zero-required-parameter tool with annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies everything an agent needs: what comes back, the sibling to prefer for guided setup, and the no-login constraint. Nothing material 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single language parameter is fully enumerated in the schema. The description says nothing about the language parameter or how it affects the returned ZIP, so it adds no meaning beyond structured data – the baseline 3 for full coverage.

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 ('Return a direct public link to the ... Website Starter ZIP') and contrasts itself with the guided alternative, start_website. An agent can distinguish it from create_starter and describe_starter without opening any 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?

It explicitly names the alternative ('For a guided setup, use start_website first') and gives the selecting condition, so the routing decision is unambiguous. The 'No login is required' note further clarifies when this path is viable.

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