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

Annotations already cover the read-only/idempotent/open-world profile, so the description's job is to add payload detail, which it does: it lists the status states, what is returned when done, and the all=true findings expansion. The one behavioral gap is wait_seconds, whose blocking behavior (up to 110s) is disclosed nowhere.

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 sentence, front-loaded with verb and resource, and every clause (id source, status values, done payload, all flag) adds information. No filler or redundant restatement of the title.

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 correctly takes on the return-value burden by describing status, score, findings, and URL. However, for a tool whose central use case is waiting on an async report, the absence of any wait_seconds explanation leaves a meaningful hole in what an agent needs to invoke it correctly.

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 67%, and the description's parameter notes ('id (from check_site)', 'up to 20 with all=true') merely restate what the schema already says. The single undocumented parameter, wait_seconds, receives no explanation in either the schema or the description, so the definition does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 ('Read a Site Check report by id') and anchors the id's origin to the sibling tool check_site. It also enumerates what the report contains (status, score, findings, URL), so an agent can distinguish it from check_site and check_agent_ready. It stops short of explicitly framing itself as the polling companion to check_site, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

The status enumeration (queued, running, done, error) implies a polling pattern, but the description never says to call this repeatedly until done, nor when to stop. Crucially, wait_seconds — the mechanism for waiting — is never mentioned, leaving the primary usage pattern only inferable rather than stated.

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