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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: results are measured not model-judged, every warn/fail includes a fix and effort level, 24-hour caching, and the output shape (0-100 score, top fixes, search appearance).

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?

It is front-loaded with the core action and scope, then packs the check categories efficiently. It is dense and long but every sentence adds informational value; only minor trimming would be possible.

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, idempotent scan with a fully documented schema and annotations covering safety, the description is complete: it explains scope, returns, caching, and fix/effort reporting. No output schema exists, yet the description appropriately summarizes the return value.

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 100%, so the schema already documents url, detail, and sections with enums and defaults. The description reinforces the 'detail full' behavior, which is redundant with the schema. Baseline 3 applies since the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 states a specific verb (run) and resource (measured health check of a public website homepage), then enumerates the exact categories checked. It is clearly distinguished from siblings like check_ai_search_readiness (which covers only one category) and score_local_presence (a different resource entirely).

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 implies when to use it (broad homepage health audit) and mentions 'Use detail "full" to include passing checks,' giving operational guidance. It doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives like check_ai_search_readiness for a focused AI-readiness check.

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