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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/openWorld annotations: discloses that checks are deterministic with no AI model and no account, defines the result shape (mine/theirs with status, scores, problem count, word count, headings, schema types, plus differences), gives report retention (30 days), error format (one plain sentence), and precisely what is logged versus never logged (no IP, no page text).

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?

Purpose and trigger are front-loaded, then output shape, then coverage limits, then privacy. Every sentence carries information, though the final 'Recorded:' clause is dense and slightly legalistic for its place in a tool description.

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 supplies the full return contract (summary, reportUrl, result with mine/theirs and differences) and error behavior, plus the verification provenance and limits an agent needs to set expectations when answering a user.

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 100% and both parameters already specify absolute http/https URLs with examples. The description only reinforces the mine-versus-theirs framing and the 'same search or task' matching constraint, which the schema already states, so it adds little new meaning.

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 ('Runs the check_page checks on the person's page and a competitor's page') plus the output scope ('lists the checks where they differ'), which cleanly separates it from the sibling check_page that audits a single page.

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 an explicit trigger ('Use it when the person asks why a competitor shows up in search or AI answers and they do not') and delineates out-of-scope questions (rankings, keyword volumes, backlinks, brand mentions). It does not explicitly say 'use check_page instead when you only have one URL', so a small amount of routing is left implicit.

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