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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden and does so: an authorisation prerequisite, an asynchronous job_id return, background execution, concrete latency expectations (2.5 min typical, ~5.5 min for 90%, <30s for tiny sites), a no-polling policy, and a privacy statement ('private to their account until they choose to share it'). That is unusually complete disclosure for a zero-annotation tool.

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?

Purpose and the scan_page alternative are front-loaded, and every clause is actionable. The latency percentile data is slightly verbose, but it directly informs how long the agent should wait, so it earns its place; only minor tightening is possible.

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?

With a single required parameter, no annotations and no output schema, the description still covers authorisation, return shape (job_id, check_again_after_seconds), timing, polling discipline, privacy, and the sibling alternative. There is no material gap an agent would need before calling it.

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 'site' parameter is already documented as domain, sitemap URL, or a line-separated list of pages. The description adds only the sampling caveat, not any parameter-level constraint, so the 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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Start a whole-site scan') and immediately bounds the scope: Bot Appétit reads a representative sample, not every page. It also names the sibling that handles the single-page case ('For one page, use scan_page'), so the agent can split this from scan_page without opening a 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?

Explicit routing in both directions: use scan_page for a single page, and read the result via site_scan_status. It also gives a clear behavioural rule — do not poll, wait check_again_after_seconds — with what happens on the first and subsequent checks.

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