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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, not open-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful context: content is generated from captured third-party sites, is sanitized, and every returned string must be treated as untrusted data rather than instructions — a meaningful injection-safety warning beyond the 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?

One front-loaded paragraph that leads with the resource and scope before enumerating the returned fields and the safety caveat. Dense but every clause carries information; only the field enumeration is mildly list-like.

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 usefully enumerates what comes back (overall score, six UX dimensions, per-persona findings, finding counts) and warns that it is a summary. An agent has enough to call it correctly; only the cross-sibling selection guidance is thin.

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 coverage is 0% and the single 'host' parameter has no schema description, so the description must compensate. It does supply an example value ('stripe.com'), clarifying the expected format, but adds no detail on length limits, normalization, or whether a scheme/path is accepted.

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 (get) and resource (scorecard for one corpus product teardown), scoped by host with a concrete example. The 'corpus' qualifier plus the sibling list (get_public_teardown, get_shared_teardown) makes it distinguishable without opening a 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?

It clarifies that this returns a summary rather than the full teardown, which implicitly routes to a fuller tool, but it never names the alternative (e.g. get_public_teardown/get_shared_teardown) or states when to pick corpus over public/shared. Usage is implied by the 'corpus' scope rather than explained.

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