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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does disclose two meaningful traits: the audit is 'passive' (non-intrusive, safe to run against third-party domains) and runs 'in one call' (a single aggregated fetch, not a multi-step probe). It omits failure modes, timeouts, and cost/rate characteristics, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 front-loaded sentence: the core action and score/grade output come first, the covered dimensions follow, and the use cases close it. No filler and nothing buried.

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 the description needn't explain return values, and it instead spends its words on the scope of the audit and its non-intrusive nature — the right allocation for a one-parameter aggregator. The remaining gap is input format guidance for 'domain', which is the only place an agent could realistically mis-call it.

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?

The single 'domain' parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. The phrase 'audit of a website' implies the input is a domain, but it doesn't resolve the practical ambiguity of whether a bare domain, a full URL, or both are accepted — a common source of invocation errors.

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 ('Passive audit') plus the resource ('a website') and enumerates the exact dimensions covered: security headers, TLS, SPF/DKIM/DMARC, SEO basics, registrar, tech stack, AI crawler rules. This clearly separates it from sibling tools like ssl_certificate, email_security, tech_stack or robots_sitemap, which each cover one slice of what this tool aggregates.

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?

Explicitly names three use contexts ('lead qualification, vendor checks or SEO and security reviews'), which tells an agent when the tool is a fit. However, it never says when to prefer the narrower siblings (ssl_certificate, http_headers, email_security) instead of this aggregate call, nor does it state any prerequisites.

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