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.