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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful beyond-annotation context: content is generated from captured third-party sites, sanitized, and every response string should be treated as untrusted data rather than instructions — a valuable prompt-injection warning.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose before the untrusted-data caveat, and every clause carries information. Slightly dense but no filler.

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 compensates by enumerating the returned fields and clearly bounding the tool as a summary rather than a full teardown. Combined with the annotations and the single well-explained parameter, an agent has what it needs to call this 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 0%, so the description carries the burden, and it does: it explains the sole parameter is a host and gives a concrete example ('stripe.com'). It adds real meaning over the bare `host` string property, though format/validation nuances (maxLength 2048) remain only in the schema.

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 ('Get the scorecard for one corpus product teardown') and enumerates the returned contents (overall score, UX six dimensions, persona findings, counts). The 'corpus' qualifier plus the sibling names imply the distinction from get_public_teardown/get_shared_teardown, but the description never explicitly contrasts them.

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?

Usage is implied by 'one corpus product teardown by host' and the explicit scope note 'This is a summary, not the full teardown,' but there is no when-to-use guidance or routing between the corpus/public/shared variants or the list_* siblings.

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