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

Annotations already establish readOnly/openWorld/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds real behavioral detail: it makes requests with each user agent, and it explains output ordering (problems with fixes first, then improvements, and an explicit all-clear message). It does not discuss rate limits or latency cost of the multi-agent requests, which is a minor gap.

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 the core purpose, then the checklist, then use cases. It is a dense, comma-chained single sentence, so the long inventory of checks is slightly harder to scan than it could be, but nearly every item carries selection value.

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?

Given a rich annotation set, a fully described single parameter, and an existing output schema, the description fills the remaining gaps: what is inspected and how results are ordered. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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?

With one parameter at 100% schema coverage, the schema already documents url and even the bare-domain-means-homepage behavior. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, 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?

Specific verb (check/audit) tied to a specific resource (one page) and scoped precisely as 'the way AI assistants and AI search see it.' The enumeration of what is inspected (crawler access, indexability, quotability, text-in-HTML, metadata) cleanly separates it from siblings like check_ai_crawlers and get_ai_visibility.

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?

Three concrete triggering scenarios are given ('why doesn't ChatGPT cite this page?', 'is my pricing page ready for AI search?', before publishing), which clearly signal when to reach for this tool. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when NOT to use it, but the context is unambiguous.

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