Check site activation

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true, which is non-obvious for a 'check' tool; the description partially earns that back by explaining that the publish.my key gets saved as a side effect. It does not say whether the save happens on this call, whether it polls, or what happens if the user hasn't activated yet.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the verb and the meaning of the check. The second sentence earns its place by explaining the consequence of activation, though it could be marginally compressed.

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 one-parameter tool with full schema coverage this is nearly complete, but with no output schema the description should hint at what the check returns (a boolean? per-site statuses when project_id is omitted?) — the agent has no idea what to expect back.

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 project_id parameter is already documented as 'omit to check every site waiting for activation.' The description adds no syntax, format, or scoping detail beyond the schema, so 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 ('check whether the user has activated a newly published site') and defines activation concretely as entering an email and clicking the link. It implicitly ties into the publish flow, but never names publish_site, list_sites or reconnect_site to differentiate itself.

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?

The mention of a 'newly published site' implies this is the follow-up step to publishing, but the description never says when to call it versus list_sites or reconnect_site, nor whether it should be polled or called once.

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