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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does a lot: free, no account needed, 24-hour cache behavior with no-cost reuse, blocked pages returned as 'blocked' with no score, and an attribution obligation. It omits specifics about the new-scan rate limit (deferred to the schema) and how long a fresh scan takes.

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?

Front-loaded with what the tool does and what it returns, then cost/caching rules. The closing branding sentence is a directive rather than tool documentation, but it is short and operationally required.

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, so the description must explain returns; 'findings by check and the report link' is only a sketch of the response shape. Combined with an unspecified rate limit and no guidance versus site-scan siblings, there are real gaps for a tool an agent must call and then report on.

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%, so both parameters are already documented, including the fresh/rate-limit tradeoff. The description only restates the fresh behavior and implies URL matching for cache hits, adding little beyond the 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?

States a specific verb and resource — 'Check one web page for AEO, SEO and performance' — and clarifies the machine-consumability angle. The 'one web page' scope implicitly separates it from the site-level siblings (start_site_scan, request_site_scan), though no sibling is named.

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?

Explains the caching rule (stored result returned free within 24 hours) and the exact condition that overrides it ('set fresh to scan again'), plus the blocked-page outcome. It gives clear operating context but never explicitly says when to prefer a site-level scan sibling instead.

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