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

The description elaborates on behavioral traits beyond the annotations: it is passive, requires no API key, is rate-limited, and returns a shareable report link. It also explicitly claims safety for unauthorized domains, which is crucial context for the agent's decision-making.

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 dense but well-structured with capitalizations and semicolons. Some redundancy exists (e.g., repeating the out-of-scope message twice), but overall it is efficient and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

Provides a complete picture: what it checks, what it returns (grade, findings, out-of-scope list, shareable link), its operational constraints (rate-limited, no API key), and its safety profile. Despite output schema not being shown, the description fully covers expected output.

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 100%, but the description adds valuable clarification about the 'host' parameter: it should be a hostname without scheme, and a pasted URL's host portion is accepted. This enhances understanding beyond the schema definition.

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?

Clearly states the tool assesses a domain's OWASP posture from external observation only, specifying the three categories (A02, A05, A06) and the grade output. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like security_scan, http_security, and ssl_check, making its purpose unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly notes when to use this tool versus alternatives: it is fully passive and safe for domains you don't own, while directing to http_security or ssl_check for depth on a single layer. Also lists the out-of-scope items, ensuring the agent knows the tool's limitations.

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