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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds real operational context beyond them: no authentication required and per-IP rate limiting. It stops short of describing throttling thresholds or what the scan returns, but the added facts are genuinely useful.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does and followed by the two operational facts an agent needs. No filler and nothing redundant.

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 read-only scan the definition is mostly sufficient, but with no output schema the description never indicates what comes back (cookie names, tracker vendors, consent categories) or how large a response to expect. That is the main remaining gap.

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 coverage is 100% for the single 'domain' parameter, so the schema already carries the burden. The description's phrase 'public website' reinforces the constraint that the domain must be publicly reachable, but adds little beyond the schema's own 'Public domain' description.

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 ('Scans a public website for trackers and cookies') and even enumerates the categories detected (analytics, marketing, preferences). It is clearly distinct from siblings like list_consents or get_site_health, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

It provides practical context ('Does not need an API key', 'Rate limited per IP') that helps an agent decide it can call this freely, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus when-not guidance relative to the sibling tools such as list_consents.

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