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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds meaningful behavioral details beyond annotations: it respects robots.txt, fetches at most 8 same-origin pages, does not authenticate/execute JavaScript/fetch assets, and explains pagination with page_offset. This fully informs the agent of runtime behavior.

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 compact and front-loaded, with four purposeful sentences covering purpose, constraints, exclusions, and continuation. No redundant or filler content; every sentence earns its place.

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 a high-quality schema, rich annotations, and an output schema present, the description still adds necessary context: the sitemap-first approach, robots.txt compliance, the 8-page cap, deduplication, non-authentication, and pagination. This makes the tool fully understandable and usable without further clarification.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining page_offset's role in continuing the audit ('Use page_offset to continue when more sitemap pages remain') and implicitly clarifies max_pages bound via 'at most 8 same-origin HTML pages per call'. This enriches parameter understanding beyond 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?

The description clearly states the tool performs a bounded, sitemap-first audit of a public website. It specifies the resource (public website), the scope (sitemap-first, at most 8 pages), and the deliverables (compact page summaries plus deduplicated findings), distinguishing it from sibling tools like check_broken_links and audit_public_webpage.

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 says when to use the tool ('for a bounded, sitemap-first audit of a public website the user owns or is authorized to inspect') and clearly lists what it does not do (e.g., site-wide link checks), which implies when not to use it. However, it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools, so the guidance is strong but not fully explicit.

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