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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false / openWorldHint=true / idempotentHint=false, and the description is consistent, adding real behavior the annotations don't carry: it persists dated check records, requires authorization and an entitled slot, and explicitly scopes the result ('installation checks do not prove a visibility improvement'). It stops short of warning that repeated runs create duplicate dated records despite the non-idempotent hint.

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?

Four short sentences, heavily front-loaded: the action first, then the persistence behavior, then prerequisites, then the caveat. Each sentence carries information, with only the slightly redundant 'same owned business website' phrasing costing anything.

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 no explanation, and the description supplies the prerequisites, mutation semantics, and interpretive caveat an agent needs to call it correctly. The main residual gap is the under-documented parameters (three of four lack any description).

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 only 25% schema description coverage, the description must compensate and partly does: 'exact artifact revision' anchors the revision integer, 'page on the same owned business website' anchors url, and 'Requires authorization' anchors authorizationAcknowledged. It still omits the url length bound, the revision > 0 constraint, and the boolean-const nature of the acknowledgement, so coverage remains incomplete.

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 gives a specific verb pair (compare, save) and a concrete resource (saved reviewed schema/text vs. a page on the owned business website), plus the recorded output (dated found/not-found/unknown checks against the artifact revision). It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like draft_website_fixes or get_website_fixes, though it never names a sibling to make the boundary explicit.

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 states two prerequisites (authorization and an entitled monitoring slot) and a scope caveat ('do not prove a visibility improvement'), which implies post-installation use. But it never explicitly says when to prefer this over get_website_fixes or inspect_business_website, so the routing guidance is only implied.

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