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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety and side-effect behavior. The description adds value by specifying the report's output structure (scores, fixes, link), but it does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as caching, rate limits (though the schema covers refresh), or error conditions. With annotations providing the baseline safety profile, the description's contribution is moderate, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 sentence that front-loads the key outputs and includes a usage directive. There is no redundancy, and every clause contributes to the agent's understanding of what to expect and when to call it. It is appropriately concise and well-structured.

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 simple read-only report tool with two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description provides enough information: it lists the three main result types and gives a clear usage context. It does not elaborate on response format or potential failure modes, but given the low complexity and the annotations covering safety, this is not a significant gap. The tool is adequately specified 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 100%; both parameters (domain and refresh) have detailed descriptions, including constraints and rate-limit notes. The tool description itself adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema already provides. Per the rubric, a baseline of 3 applies when schema coverage is high and the description doesn't 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 lists the report's contents ('Both scores, the open fixes ranked by severity, and the shareable report link') and ties it to a common question, making the tool's purpose clear. It does not explicitly state the verb 'returns' or 'gets,' but the tool name and context supply that. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by indicating it is the first step for overall setup questions.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Use this first for "is my domain set up right?" questions.' This provides a clear trigger condition. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the implication that this is the entry point for general checks versus specific checks (e.g., check_discoverability) is strong enough for an agent to route correctly.

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