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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false. The description adds what those hints cannot: the tool makes bounded public HTML requests (open-world network scope), requires a paid/trial slot plus explicit authorization, writes candidate facts with source receipts, and preserves existing draft content. It also explicitly disclaims AI scanning and publishing, so no contradiction with 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?

Five short sentences, each carrying a distinct payload (action, precondition, revision requirement, draft-preservation rule, scope exclusions), with the core action front-loaded. Dense but not padded; a little more structural grouping of preconditions would earn a 5.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description supplies the remaining operational context an agent needs: slot requirement, authorization, revision passing, and draft-preservation behavior. It could be more explicit about what happens on a stale revision, but coverage is strong overall.

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 description coverage is 67%; revision and businessId are documented in the schema, and authorizationAcknowledged carries no description beyond const true. The description reinforces two of these ('Pass the exact current revision', 'explicit authorization'), which clarifies intent but adds little syntax or format meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 for moderate coverage.

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: fetch the saved business website, run bounded public HTML requests, and save candidate facts with source receipts. It also carves out scope against siblings by declaring 'Does not run AI scans or publish anything', which separates it from analyze_discovery_readiness and draft_website_fixes. The differentiation is generic rather than naming a specific sibling, so it stops short of a 5.

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 real preconditions (paid or trial monitoring slot, explicit authorization) and sequencing advice ('start a new inspection only before confirming facts'). It does not name a specific alternative tool or state when another tool should be preferred, so it is clear context without exclusions.

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