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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/closed-world, but the description adds real context: results come from the *latest crawl* (not a live crawl), carry the crawl date, and 'unknown' means the check failed to run rather than a coverage gap — a distinction that prevents a costly misinterpretation. It doesn't say whether a crawl is triggered or how stale results can be.

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 core action and the result categories are front-loaded, and the closing 'unknown' clarification earns its sentence. The usage sentence slightly overlaps the opening scope statement, so it isn't perfectly lean.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly explains the return values (four verdicts, evidence URLs, crawl date). It leaves open what happens when a project has never been crawled, though the 'unknown' note partly covers that case.

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 each parameter is documented there, including the parentTopic rationale and the 1–15 topic limit, so the description only reinforces 'one or more topics'. Baseline 3 applies since the schema carries the parameter burden.

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: check the latest crawl for pages that already cover given topics, returning a per-topic verdict. That is distinguishable from the visibility_* siblings (AI-answer visibility) and find_internal_links, though it never names those siblings explicitly to draw the line.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger condition: 'Use it when the user asks whether their site already has something, and before proposing new content.' No when-not guidance or named alternatives are provided, so it stops short of a 5.

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