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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and usefully discloses pricing and payment mechanics ($0.005 USDC per call via x402 on Base). It also indicates the return shape by mentioning a value and concrete fix per check, though it omits rate-limit or failure 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?

The description is compact and front-loaded: the grading action and covered headers come first, followed by the pricing detail. Every clause contributes useful selection or invocation information.

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?

For a single-parameter audit tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it names the checks, explains the return content, and discloses payment requirements. The main gap is the lack of explicit sibling routing guidance.

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?

There is only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents the URL input. The description adds nothing beyond the schema for this parameter, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 and resource: grade a web page A-F on HTTP security headers. It enumerates the checks covered, which clearly distinguishes it from broader siblings like domainaudit_audit or domainaudit_tls.

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 focused scope implies when to use it—when you need a security-header-only assessment—but it never explicitly says when to choose it over domainaudit_audit or domainaudit_audit_bundle. There are no exclusions or routing guidance.

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