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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the agent already knows this is a non-destructive, non-idempotent, outward-reaching operation. The description adds valuable context the annotations do not: the same one-per-day limit as the in-app button, asynchronous background execution, and the required follow-up call to get_job_status.

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?

Three sentences, zero filler. The scanning constraint and rate limit are front-loaded, then the sibling relationship, then the async follow-up — a logical order for an agent to act on.

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?

Covers everything the agent needs for a parameterless async job: what it does, when to prefer it, the daily limit, and that a follow-up status call is required. An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4 with no room for the description to add parameter meaning. Nothing in the schema needs compensating for.

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 ("Scan the store's content for broken links") and immediately contrasts with the sibling list_broken_links by noting that the sibling reports the LAST scan. An agent can distinguish the two without opening either schema.

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 when-to-use condition ("run this first when the merchant has just changed content or asks whether something is still broken") and names the alternative tool it should be preferred over in that situation. Also surfaces the one-per-day rate limit that constrains the decision.

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