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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, and destructive hints. The description adds meaningful output behavior: 'at most one measured finding with a server-authenticated source receipt and the fixed acceptance condition.' This is beyond the annotations and tells the agent what to expect from the result.

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, zero filler. The usage precondition is front-loaded, followed by the output guarantee. Every word contributes.

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 2-parameter tool with an output schema and complete annotations, the description fully covers what an agent needs: when to use it, what it returns, and the read-only nature. Nothing essential 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%: both parameters have clear descriptions, including the URL constraint (credential-free, rejects private networks/non-standard ports) and language enum. The tool description does not add parameter-specific details, so the baseline 3 applies—it neither harms nor enhances beyond schema.

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 title and description together clearly state the tool checks one public store page and returns at most one measured readiness finding. The verb 'check' + resource 'store page' + scope 'one... one...' is specific. With no siblings, it fully identifies the operation.

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 description explicitly says 'Use only after the requester supplies a public page and asks for a read-only check.' This gives a clear precondition and the only valid invocation context. It leaves no ambiguity about when to call it.

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