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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that the response includes cached llms.txt content and OpenAPI summary, and importantly details the subtle record_action_interest opportunity that may appear with a search_id, clarifying that selection alone is never interest and never contacts the provider. This is valuable behavioral context beyond the schema and helps set expectations.

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?

The description is concise and well-structured: two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a detailed enumeration of contents and a crucial caveat. Every clause adds information without redundancy, earning a top score.

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 no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what the response will contain (score, category, signals, cached content, summary, optional action-interest). It also addresses the edge case of search_id selection, making the tool's behavior clear for an agent to invoke 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds extra semantic value by explaining the conditional behavior of search_id (newly records selection, may trigger an action-interest opportunity) and reiterates the domain input requirement. This goes beyond a baseline score of 3 by providing richer context for the optional parameter.

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 description uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('full agentic readiness report') with an explicit scope ('for a specific domain'), listing the exact contents (score, category, 7 signal checks). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like check_url or find_mcp_servers by enumerating the report's unique components.

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 description implies when to use the tool: when the full readiness report is needed. It provides context by specifying all included signals and the optional search_id behavior. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'use check_url for a quick check'), but the context is clear enough for an agent to infer.

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