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

Adds real context beyond annotations: a 2-credit cost charged only on success and a 100 req/min per-key rate limit, both of which matter for planning calls. Annotations already declare it is non-destructive and not open-world, so the remaining gap is that the ranking algorithm and result count are not described.

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 tight sentences; the value proposition and ranking basis come first, with operational constraints after. 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 usefully characterizes the return (ranked actions with how-to-fix guidance), and it covers cost and rate limits. It does not say how many actions are returned or whether results are capped or paginated.

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% and the single optional 'domain' parameter is documented as restricting to one site, so the schema does the work. The description adds nothing about the parameter, which is acceptable given full coverage but earns only the baseline.

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 specifically what it returns: high-impact actions ranked by severity and page reach, each with concrete fix guidance. That is well beyond restating the name. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from the close sibling find_issues, so an agent must infer which produces a prioritized plan versus a raw issue list.

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?

'right now' implies the timing context for calling it, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. With find_issues and get_site_report among siblings, the agent gets implied usage only.

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