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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context by specifying that fixes are returned deterministically prioritized and by detailing required production payment/authentication headers, though it omits rate limits and non-production 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?

Two sentences with the purpose front-loaded and no filler. The payment sentence is dense but earns its place if production billing is required.

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 explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, the description leaves all three parameters except url unexplained and provides no usage context relative to siblings, making it incomplete for a tool with 0% schema description coverage.

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%, so the description must compensate, but it only implies the 'url' parameter via 'one public webpage'. It gives no meaning for max_age_ms or the response_mode enum values (minimal, standard, evidence).

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 states a specific verb ('Audit'), resource ('one public webpage'), and output ordering ('highest-priority deterministic fixes first'). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as web_qa or verify_claim, so it falls short of the top score.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like web_qa, verify_claim, or source_snapshot. The payment information explains billing, not usage context or exclusions.

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