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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: the response shape changes over the run's lifetime (progress while running, final score and fix list when done) and access is restricted to the caller who started the run, including the guest-address case. Polling cadence and whether a failed run returns a distinct status are not covered.

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 source tool, then the access constraint. The rundown of return values slightly overlaps the output schema, but it is brief and does not read as padding.

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?

An output schema exists, so return details are optional here, yet the description still signals the progress-to-result transition that matters for polling. Authorization semantics are stated, and with one required parameter and full schema coverage, 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 coverage is 100% and the single run_id is documented in the schema as 'the id analyze_site returned', so the description's mention of analyze_site adds no new meaning. With only one fully described parameter there is little for the description to contribute 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 (read) and resource (an audit) and explicitly ties it to the sibling that creates it (analyze_site), while also saying what comes back: progress, then a score out of 100 and top fixes. An agent can distinguish this from analyze_site or visibility_history without opening any 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?

The prerequisite is explicit: this reads an audit started by analyze_site, so the agent knows to call analyze_site first and poll here for progress. It does not name an alternative for retrieving finished results elsewhere, but the workflow context is clear enough to act on.

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