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

Annotations supply idempotentHint, and the description explains the exact cache behavior (one fresh scan per 30 days, saved scan with date returned on repeat). It also discloses latency (10–40 seconds) and the no-account/free aspect, all beyond the structured fields.

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 action and then details output, caching, and timing. It is slightly long due to enumerating every report category, but each sentence adds operational or output context.

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?

With an output schema present and a single well-documented parameter, the description covers everything an agent needs: what is returned, how long it takes, repeat-call behavior, and no auth. Nothing material is missing.

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%, and the url parameter is already documented with format examples. The description adds only the 'public' constraint and home-page scope, so it stays at the baseline.

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 ('Scans'), a specific resource ('one public website'), and a concrete outcome (platform/technology detection plus a summary and scores). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like get_page or search_site, which are navigation/content tools, without needing to name them.

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?

Provides clear operational context: only public home pages are scanned, scans are cached for 30 days, and repeats return the saved scan. It does not explicitly say when to prefer this over sibling tools, but the constraints make its scope evident.

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