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

Annotations already declare this a safe, idempotent, closed-world read, so the bar is lower; the description still adds genuine semantics about how the data is assembled (full crawl merged with newer diff overlays) and the notable behavior that robots-blocked pages are counted but never fetched. It stops short of describing the response shape or what happens when no scan exists.

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?

One dense sentence, front-loaded with the resource and followed by the most decision-relevant qualifiers. Every clause (lifecycle, merge rule, robots handling) carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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 must describe the return value itself, and it does so only at a high level — 'lifecycle' and 'findings' are named but their fields, volume, or truncation behavior are not. For a read-only reporting tool it is adequate, but an agent cannot predict what it will actually receive.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, including the connected-app vs API-key resolution rule, so the schema fully carries parameter meaning. The description adds nothing about siteId, which is acceptable at this coverage level but earns only the baseline.

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 names a specific resource and its composition: latest run lifecycle plus merged page-level findings from the newest full crawl with newer diff overlays. That is concrete enough to distinguish it from generic metric tools, though it never states a verb or explicitly contrasts itself with siblings like get_geo_audit or get_evidence.

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 when-to-use guidance at all: no prerequisites, no conditions under which this beats get_geo_audit/get_evidence, and no indication of what to do if no scan has run yet. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and the sibling list.

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