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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses key behavior: the scan runs asynchronously with a 5–20 minute duration, duplicate adds return alreadyAdded: true, and plan limits govern site count and scan depth. No statement contradicts the annotations.

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 paragraph is five sentences, but each sentence adds distinct information: action, input form, scan duration, idempotency, and plan constraints. It is slightly dense but not redundant.

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 covers the response behavior for duplicates and gives enough context about timing and plan constraints to invoke the tool correctly. It falls short of describing the full return payload, but that is not essential for correct invocation.

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 description largely restates the parameter descriptions for domain and path rather than adding new parameter-level meaning. It adds plan context (audit:run scope) but does not materially expand on what each parameter means 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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Add a website to the account and start its first scan.' It also clearly distinguishes this from sibling rescan_site by emphasizing this is the first scan of a newly added site.

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 clearly frames the tool as the dashboard-equivalent action for adding a site and explains what happens for duplicates, so an agent understands the main use case. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives such as rescan_site or state when not to use this tool.

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