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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds significant operational context by specifying production payment mechanisms (x402 v2 PAYMENT-SIGNATURE for Base USDC or X-Found17 billing headers), which is critical for correct invocation and goes 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?

The description is two tight sentences. The purpose is front-loaded, and the payment details, while dense, are necessary for invocation and contain 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?

The tool has three parameters with no schema descriptions, and an output schema exists so return values need not be explained. However, the description omits parameter semantics and usage guidelines relative to siblings, leaving the agent under-informed about when and how to use the tool correctly.

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 0% and the description does not mention any parameters. It adds no meaning beyond the schema for url, max_age_ms, or response_mode, leaving the agent to infer the purpose and acceptable values of each parameter.

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 names a specific verb ('Run'), resource ('remote HTTP/HTML/SEO/accessibility checks'), and scope ('public webpage'), which is more precise than a generic audit. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling website_audit, so an agent must still infer which tool to choose.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as website_audit or verify_claim. It only explains payment modes, leaving usage context and exclusions entirely absent.

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