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

The annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and non-open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond them: the server does not fetch or audit the site itself, and the audit runs in the browser of whoever opens the returned link and shows results there. Neither authentication requirements nor rate limits are mentioned, but they are not critical for a pure link builder.

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 three dense sentences with the primary action front-loaded, then the disambiguation of the non-goal, then the input restrictions. Every sentence carries information, and there is little filler beyond the jwatte.com brand reference.

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?

The tool is simple, with two required parameters and full schema coverage, and an output schema exists. The description covers the return shape conceptually (a link), the execution model (it runs in the opener's browser), and the input constraints, so nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly 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 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents both parameters, including the bare-host defaulting to HTTPS, the slug pattern and the examples. The description adds a semantic constraint the schema omits: the slug must come from a tool whose takes_url is true. Beyond that, it mostly restates the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 concrete action: given a tool slug and a public URL, it returns a jwatte.com link that opens that tool with the address pre-filled and starts the audit. It also distinguishes itself from its siblings by naming find_tool and list_audit_tools as the source of the slug, and it explicitly denies being an auditing service, so an agent can separate it from any actual audit 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?

Explains the prerequisite chain (first get a slug from find_tool or list_audit_tools where takes_url is true) and the input restrictions (public http/https only, no localhost, private or link-local IPs, internal names, credentials, non-standard ports). It does not explicitly state when an agent should choose a different sibling for a non-URL use case, but the guidance that is present is clear.

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