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 states that only reachability metadata is returned, that file contents are never returned or stored, and that a random-path baseline mitigates SPA/catch-all false positives.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and is generally efficient. The long enumeration of paths is useful for scope but makes the first sentence heavier than ideal.

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?

Given one parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly. It covers scope, return metadata, privacy behavior, false-positive handling, and intended use.

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 single url parameter is already documented as "Any URL on the site to probe (origin is derived from it)." The main description does not add further parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score 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: probing a site for publicly exposed sensitive files. It lists the exact file classes checked and clearly distinguishes this from sibling security/audit tools.

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 gives clear usage context ("For auditing your own sites' exposure"), which also implies an authorization boundary. However, it does not explicitly name when not to use it or point to alternatives among the many sibling audit tools.

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