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

Annotations already disclose readOnly, idempotent, and openWorld behavior, so safety is covered. The description adds one genuine behavioral fact: results are ordered with the highest-priority deterministic fixes first, and 'deterministic' signals repeatable findings. It says nothing about timeout/latency behavior or what happens on unreachable pages.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no waste, and it puts the scope constraint and result ordering up front. It is efficient but very sparse for a tool with undocumented parameters.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, with three undocumented parameters and no usage guidance, the definition does not give an agent enough to invoke it correctly, especially the meaning of response_mode and max_age_ms.

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% across three parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. Only 'one public webpage' loosely hints at the single-URL constraint; max_age_ms and the minimal/standard/evidence response_mode enum are left entirely unexplained.

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 ('Audit') and resource ('one public webpage'), which cleanly separates it from siblings like web_qa and verify_claim. It does not explicitly name a sibling or boundary, so it stops short of 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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no statement of when this is preferable to web_qa, verify_claim, or source_snapshot, and no prerequisites (e.g., page must be publicly reachable). The agent must infer selection from the name alone.

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