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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the call is fast ('Returns in seconds') and the optional checks are the slow path. It does not say anything about auth or rate limits, but the latency disclosure is real added value.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and single-call scope, then the invocation triggers, then the optional-cost caveat. The long enumeration of checks is dense but each item earns its place by telling the agent what the report contains.

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, but the enumerated check list effectively describes the report contents, and the latency note sets expectations for turnaround. An agent has enough to call it correctly; only the exact return shape and any error/auth behavior are unaddressed.

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 both parameters are already documented, and the schema itself already states that each extra check adds 10 to 30 seconds. The description's 'Add extra_checks for the slower ones' therefore largely restates the schema, leaving it at the baseline 3 with no additional syntax or format detail.

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 ('full technical and answer-readiness audit for one URL, in a single call') and enumerates the exact check set, so an agent knows precisely what comes back. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling geo_audit, which is the one plausible overlap, so it stops short of a 5.

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 concrete trigger phrases ('audit my site', 'check my site', 'why am I not being recommended') that map user intent onto the tool. It is clear about when to use it but offers no when-not or explicit alternative, so no exclusion guidance.

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