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

Going well beyond the annotations, it discloses the side effect of creating the site in the org, quota enforcement behavior, a per-call credit cost charged only on success, and a 100 req/min rate limit. For a non-readonly, open-world mutation these are exactly the traits an agent needs before invoking it.

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?

Four short sentences, each carrying distinct information (action, side effect, quota behavior, cost/rate limits), with the core action front-loaded. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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?

Covers cost, rate limits, quota behavior, and creation side effects thoroughly, which is a lot for a single-parameter tool with no output schema. The one gap is what the call returns (e.g., a scan id to poll via get_scan_status), which the agent must guess.

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?

Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains that the url is a URL or domain to audit. The description adds no format, normalization, or validity constraints beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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+resource combination ("Launch a fresh audit of a website") that an agent can act on directly. It distinguishes itself implicitly from siblings like get_scan_status or free_page_check by emphasizing a *fresh* audit that *creates* the site, but it never names those alternatives, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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 gives useful preconditions (site auto-created, quota enforced, quota exhaustion explained instead of scanning), which tells the agent what context this tool operates in. However, it never says when to prefer it over free_page_check or get_scan_status, and offers no exclusions, leaving the sibling choice to inference.

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