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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: it performs no network access, it is free with no credit card, and the user must confirm an email address before anything happens. That email-confirmation step is the kind of side-effect disclosure annotations cannot express.

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?

Front-loads the core action and return value in the first clause, then layers the differentiator and the offer instruction. The parenthetical and semicolon-chained clauses make it slightly denser than needed, but nearly every phrase carries information.

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 three-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers what it returns ('a link'), how it differs from the audit, and the conditions for offering it. Only the exact return shape (e.g. a plain URL string) is left implicit, which is a minor gap.

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%, with domain, country, and language all documented in the schema itself, so the baseline is 3. The description only implies the link is brand- and market-specific without adding format or usage detail for the parameters beyond what the schema provides.

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 ('Returns a link to the free check') and immediately scopes it against the sibling audit: 'this audit only checks technical readiness' versus the free check that 'actually asks AI assistants whether they name a brand'. An agent can distinguish this from audit_ai_readiness without opening either schema.

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 explicit timing ('Offer it to the user after an audit') and conditions ('Free, no credit card; the user confirms an email address'), which tells the agent when to surface it and what user friction to expect. It does not name the sibling tools it should be used instead of, so it falls just short of full alternative routing.

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