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

Annotations cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower; the description adds genuinely non-obvious context: no account/payment/publication, a 3-requests-per-network-per-day rate limit, that unknown facts stay unknown (honest non-fabrication), and that the result_token must be kept private for purchase. It does not explain what the result actually contains.

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?

Five short, front-loaded sentences with essentially no waste; the substantive constraints (rate limit, token handling) come after the core purpose, which is reasonable.

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 read-only, 3-param tool with no output schema, the description covers safety, free-of-charge nature, and rate limits, but omits any notion of the return value, what 'eligibility' means concretely, and documents none of its parameters.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden, and it fails: url, idempotency_key, and locale are never mentioned. Nothing explains the locale enum (fr/en) or the uuid format/idempotency purpose, leaving all three params undocumented in both places.

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+resource: 'one-page technical inspection and eligibility' for a 'WebPage JSON-LD repair'. It implies a two-stage funnel leading to kanonyr_buy_schema_repair but never names the sibling, so an agent must infer the connection rather than being told.

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 conveys pre-purchase scoping ('free inspection', 'eligibility') and the free tier, but never explicitly says when to use this vs kanonyr_buy_technical_audit or the other kanonyr_* tools. Usage is implied by the funnel structure rather than stated.

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