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

Annotations already declare write, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real value by enumerating the three refusal conditions (plan capacity, past-due account, Drop2Run suspension) and noting the reason is surfaced. It stops short of describing permissions or the exact resulting site state.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the failure modes. Every clause earns its place with 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?

Output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. For a single-parameter state-transition tool, purpose plus explicit refusal conditions is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 one parameter's description ('Subdomain or site id, from list_sites') already carries the semantics. The description only implies the site must currently be paused, adding marginal meaning beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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+resource ('Puts a paused site back on the air') that an agent can immediately distinguish from the inverse sibling pause_site. No ambiguity about what operation is performed.

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?

Usage is implied by the name and first sentence (call it when a site is paused), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not routing or comparison to siblings such as pause_site. The refusal conditions describe server-side failures, not how to choose this tool over an alternative.

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