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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the return content ('score and concrete findings') and implies a read-only external fetch via 'checks','audit', but does not cover latency, rate limits, behavior on unreachable/non-public URLs, or whether the crawl is live. Adequate but incomplete 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with what is checked, then the output, then the routing instruction. Every sentence carries distinct information with no filler.

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 no output schema, the description correctly explains what is returned (score plus findings) and scopes the tool to public sites. It omits failure modes for inaccessible sites, which is a minor gap for a simple one-parameter auditing tool.

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% with a single well-documented 'url' parameter (format uri, example given), so the schema already does the work. The description adds no format or constraint detail beyond it; 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?

States a specific verb ('checks') and resource ('public website'), enumerates exactly what is inspected (crawler access, structured data, headings, metadata), and explicitly distinguishes itself from check_ai_visibility. An agent knows precisely what this tool does without opening the 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?

Explicitly says 'Use this first, before check_ai_visibility' and gives the reason (to see what is technically blocking AI search). This is a named alternative plus the condition that selects it — nothing left to inference.

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