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

With annotations declaring readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, the description adds value by defining it as an assessment that 'return technical evidence and explicit identity, ownership, compliance, and vendor-approval limitations.' It also states the optional GLEIF matching does not prove ownership, which is a behavioral caveat. No contradiction with 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 a single, dense sentence that packs all key information: the object of assessment, the assessment dimensions, optional legal_name usage, and the explicit limits of what the tool claims. No filler, front-loaded with the main action.

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 an output schema present and three parameters, two of which have schema descriptions and one that is obvious from the description, the tool is complete for a complex due-diligence tool. The description covers purpose, scope, optional inputs, and limitations. Combined with annotations, it provides sufficient context for an agent to invoke 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 description coverage is 67% (url is not described in the schema). The description covers the purpose of optional legal_name and country_code explicitly (country_code is described as 'Optional ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 legal-address country filter', legal_name mentions GLEIF matching). The url parameter lacks schema description, but the description implicitly defines it as the business website to assess. This compensates well for the 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 states a comprehensive but specific purpose: 'Assess one public business website and domain using site quality, SEO, security, accessibility, performance, DNS, TLS, RDAP, and optional public GLEIF candidates; return technical evidence and explicit identity, ownership, compliance, and vendor-approval limitations.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like web.full-audit and web.domain-intelligence by specifying the coverage areas and the explicit limitation disclaimer.

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 implies when to use: for a combined business due-diligence assessment of a website and domain. It explicitly mentions optional GLEIF matching for legal_name, and includes 'explicit identity, ownership, compliance, and vendor-approval limitations,' which sets expectations but does not explicitly name alternative tools or when-not-to-use. Since siblings like web.full-audit exist, this could benefit from an explicit alternative, but the context is clear enough.

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