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

Adds substantial context beyond annotations: it takes up to a minute, consumes one review credit, renders at two specific viewport widths (1440px, 390px), inspects screenshots, and returns no code patches. This covers cost, latency, and output nature, which the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true) alone do not.

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-loads the core action and scope, then lists constraints and routing. It is dense but every sentence earns its place; the quoted examples add a little padding but are useful for trigger matching.

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 fully describes the return value (severity, category, location, plain-word fix, 0-100 score) as well as limits, credits, and eligibility constraints. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and set expectations.

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 both url and focus are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or behavior detail for the parameters themselves (viewport widths are fixed behavior, not params). Baseline 3 applies since the schema carries the parameter load.

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 and resource: 'Review a live public web page by its URL, no code needed.' It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like review_files and quick_review, which operate on files, while this one operates on a live URL.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use triggers with quoted examples ('review rams.ai with Rams'), hard exclusions (public pages only: no sign-in, localhost, or private addresses), and routes the agent to quick_review or review_files when the user has code. All the selection logic is spelled out.

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