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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description need not restate safety. It adds value by detailing what the scan returns and the specific signals checked (robots rules, sitemap, llms.txt, JSON-LD, MCP manifest, AP2 endpoint, product feed, policies). No contradiction exists; the description complements the annotations with operational context.

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 a single, information-dense sentence that leads with the core action and then lists deliverables. It is efficient and front-loaded, though slightly long due to the enumeration of signals. No redundant phrasing or filler, so it earns a 4.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description fully specifies the return format (scores and pass/fail details) and the exact set of signals evaluated. There is no missing information an agent needs to call the tool correctly or interpret its result. The description is complete for this simple tool.

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 schema has a single parameter 'url' with a clear description and example. Schema coverage is 100%, so the description adds no additional parameter-level meaning. Per the baseline rule for high coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate; the description does not need to compensate.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Run') and resource ('Apirro's free agentic-commerce readiness scan') and immediately clarifies scope ('on any public website'). It lists concrete output (scores 0-100 and per-signal pass/fail) and enumerates the underlying signals, making it unambiguous how it differs from sibling tools like explain_readiness_signal or get_agentic_commerce_glossary.

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 description clearly states the input is any public website, which implies the tool is for scanning external sites. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the context signals (siblings) make the intended use obvious. It lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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