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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: results come from a cache, and an unchecked domain returns a not-scanned message rather than an error. It stops short of describing cache staleness or refresh semantics, which would be the next level of detail.

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 zero filler, front-loaded with what is returned and followed by the edge case and the sibling routing. Every clause earns its place.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description compensates by enumerating the return payload (score, grade, layer breakdown, top findings) and the not-scanned case. Combined with the annotations and a fully documented parameter, nothing an agent needs is missing.

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?

With a single parameter and 100% schema description coverage (e.g. stripe.com), the schema already carries the specification. The description's 'public website domain' wording is consistent but adds no format constraints, validation rules or edge cases beyond the schema.

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 and resource: fetch the cached agent-readiness score, grade, layer breakdown and findings for a public website domain. It explicitly frames the result as coming from Dedica's cache, which separates it from the sibling scan tool.

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?

Names the alternative (scan_website_for_agent_readiness) and the condition that selects it: run a fresh check. It also states the fallback behavior when a domain has never been checked, so the agent knows what to expect without a separate call.

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