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

With only readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, the description does add real behavioral context: results come from a bounded crawl sample, the sample is explicitly incomplete ('does not describe every page'), and run-time validation of ownership/version/expiry/membership signals auth gating. It stops short of saying what happens on validation failure or describing pagination/response behavior, and the mutation-implying readOnlyHint=false is not reconciled with the read-like framing.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded and free of padding at the sentence level. However, the opening sentence is a name restatement that consumes prime real estate without conveying scope or action, so the space is not fully earned.

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 3-parameter, read-only-in-practice query tool with no output schema, the description does cover the key caveats an agent needs before calling: sample boundedness, evidence typing, and run-time membership/version checks. The missing piece is what 'affected pages' actually means and what the required task_id/resourceUrl represent.

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 0% and none of the three parameters (task_id, resourceUrl, limit) is explained in the description. 'Bounded crawl sample' weakly gestures at limit, but there is nothing on what task_id must reference or what form of resourceUrl is accepted, so the description fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 first sentence restates the tool name ('Resource Affected Pages') rather than supplying a verb, and 'affected pages' is never defined. It hints at output shape ('typed source evidence and missing-field diagnostics') but an agent cannot tell from this what the tool returns or how it differs from siblings such as nexscope_website_resource_status or nexscope_website_links.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool instead of alternative page/resource tools, and no condition selecting it. The only usage-adjacent content is the note that ownership, version, expiry and membership are 'checked when run', which implies prerequisites but not when to reach for it.

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