number7even website check

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that only public data is used and nothing is stored, and that the response is a 0-100 score plus prioritized fixes. It does not say whether the call blocks until analysis completes, how long it takes, or whether there are rate limits, which matters because the sibling names imply an async start/status pattern.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core capability and the return format front-loaded, followed by a short data-handling note. No filler, though the opening clause is slightly convoluted relative to a plain "tests X for Y" phrasing.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description does cover the return shape and privacy posture, which is helpful. For a tool with two async-sounding siblings, however, the absence of any statement about synchronous execution versus polling leaves an agent guessing at the calling pattern.

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 both url and lang documented including an example and the enum values. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 and resource: test whether AI assistants can find, understand, and act on a website, and it names the output (a score out of 100 plus top fixes). An agent can grasp the function without opening the schema. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling start_website_check, which sounds like it could be the same action.

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?

The only usage cue is the word "Free", implying no cost or prerequisites. There is no statement of when to call this instead of start_website_check or get_check_status, and no indication of whether the result is immediate or must be polled. Given two similarly named siblings, the missing routing guidance is a real gap.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the return payload (progress stages: reading, sorting, designs, done, plus a private link), which is real value beyond the schema, but says nothing about whether the link expires, what happens for invalid ids, or whether the operation is a safe read.

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?

A single compact sentence with the key information front-loaded and no filler. The trade-off is mild terseness in the opening clause, which reads awkwardly rather than wastefully.

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 simple one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description does cover the return shape (status stage and link), which is the main gap it needed to fill. It falls short on error/edge behavior and on the polling relationship to the sibling tools.

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?

Only one parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline would be 3; the description adds nothing parameter-specific but nothing is needed. It stays a notch above baseline because the referenced id source (returned by start_website_check) is already captured in 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?

Names the resource (a website check's progress) and what it returns (a stage plus a private link), with the stages enumerated. It implies the read counterpart to start_website_check, though it never names that sibling explicitly and the phrasing "How far a website check is" is slightly ungrammatical.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the poll-after-start tool, and the schema's id description references start_website_check. There is no explicit statement of when to call it (e.g., after starting a check), how often to poll, or what to do instead if the id is unknown.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it reads public pages for about 1-2 minutes, builds a private preview using the business's texts and pictures in every design, runs security/sovereignty/AI-visibility checks, produces a fixed-price spec, and explicitly says nothing is ordered or paid. This tells an agent what the tool does and what it does not do.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and outcome. Every clause adds useful context about duration, privacy, deliverable, and payment status; there is no filler.

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 one-parameter starter tool with no output schema, it explains the process, duration, privacy, return artifact, and that nothing is ordered or paid. It does not explain the relationship to get_check_status or whether the agent should poll for completion, which is the main remaining contextual 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 coverage is 100% and already documents the single url parameter with an example. The description adds some meaning by indicating the site should be an existing business website whose public pages are read, but it does not add format, validation, or uniqueness semantics 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?

States a specific verb ('Start') and resource ('free website check') for a business's existing website, with scope in 'reads the public pages' and 'builds a private preview'. It does not explicitly contrast with check_agent_readiness or get_check_status, so sibling differentiation is only implied by 'Start'.

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 clear context: use for a business's existing website, it is free, nothing is ordered or paid, and it returns a private link to give the person. It does not state when not to use it or name get_check_status as the follow-up alternative, so it is clear but not exhaustive.

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