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

The description adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: it names the gate ladder (feature flag, plan allowance, ownership verification, burst cap), states that refusals identify which gate failed, clarifies there is no provider cost, and describes the crawl as polite and limited to the site's own pages. This tells an agent far more about failure modes and cost than readOnlyHint/openWorldHint alone.

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?

Two dense sentences with no filler; the core action is front-loaded and the gate-ladder detail follows. Every clause carries operational information an agent would otherwise have to discover by trial.

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?

For a non-idempotent, open-world mutation with no output schema, the description covers cost, gating, and refusal behavior well, which is the critical part. The remaining gap is the post-call handoff: it does not say whether a scan handle is returned or that get_deep_scan is how results are retrieved, leaving the agent to infer the follow-up.

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?

The single siteId parameter has 100% schema description coverage, and that description already explains the connected-app default and API-key requirement. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning on top of the schema, which is the expected baseline when coverage is high.

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 gives a specific verb ("Queue") plus resource ("deep site scan") and parenthetically defines the scope of the operation: a sitemap-first crawl capped by the plan's page ladder. This distinguishes it from read-side siblings like get_deep_scan, which retrieves rather than queues a scan.

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?

Usage is only implied: the word "Queue" signals an asynchronous start, so a reasonable agent infers it should call this first and poll with get_deep_scan. However, it never states when to use this over alternatives or what to do after calling it, so the guidance stops short of explicit routing.

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