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

Adds context beyond the annotations: the latency characteristic ("up to a few minutes" for unscanned domains) and what the response contains (score, grade, top findings). This is genuinely useful since readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false already flag that it is a non-read-only, repeatable-cost operation, but the description doesn't explain what the scan creates or whether results are persisted.

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, zero waste, with the action and return values front-loaded and the latency caveat placed where it will actually influence the agent's decision to call.

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 correctly compensates by naming the returned fields and the expected wait time. The only material gap is that it doesn't differentiate itself from its single sibling, which for a scan tool is important for selection.

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% and the single domain parameter is documented with an example in the schema, so the description adds nothing parameter-specific. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Specific verb+resource: "Run a fresh agent-readiness scan of a public website domain," plus what it returns. It doesn't name the sibling check_website_agent_readiness, so the agent must infer that "fresh" is the distinguishing trait rather than being told 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?

"Fresh" and "a domain that has never been scanned" imply this tool initiates a new scan and is appropriate for cold domains, but the description never states when to prefer it over check_website_agent_readiness. Usage is implied rather than directed.

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