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

The description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond the annotations: it lists exactly what is inspected (robots.txt for 12 AI bots, llms.txt, bot walls/captchas, post-JavaScript text, sitemap, JSON-LD, prices, MCP/A2A cards, OpenAPI), what is returned (0-100 score, headlines, fails, warnings, report URL), and how long it takes. This is rich context for a read-only checker and does not contradict the annotations.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the main action and scope, then lists the checks and return values efficiently. It is dense but mostly purposeful; the league URL is promotional but also provides a useful benchmark reference.

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?

Given the tool's complexity, the description is complete enough to call it correctly: it explains the target, the checks performed, the return shape, and expected runtime. With no output schema present, the description appropriately fills in the return-value details.

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%, so both parameters are already well documented in the schema. The description implies the 'url' target is a public website and mentions timing, but it does not add parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, such as how 'wait_seconds' affects polling or what happens when it returns an id.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Run a free Tuper Agent-Ready Check on a public website' and explains that it assesses whether AI agents can reach, read, and use the site. It clearly states the many checks performed, but it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from the sibling 'check_site', leaving sibling selection partly inferential.

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?

It gives clear usage context: this is for a public website, it is free, and it takes 5-30 seconds. However, it does not state when to use this tool versus 'check_site' or 'get_report', and it provides no exclusions or prerequisites.

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