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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose the key trait that this is a read of a cached public scan rather than a live measurement, plus the fact that core checks are identical for every site. It omits what happens when no cached scan exists (error vs empty) and any auth/rate-limit notes, so it is strong but not complete.

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 dense sentences with zero filler; the return contents come first and the routing hint is front-loaded at the end where it is most actionable.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description rightly enumerates the returned fields, and it covers the cached-vs-fresh tradeoff. The only real gap is the unstated behavior when a site has never been scanned.

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% for the single domain parameter, so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds nothing about accepted domain formats or normalization, making this the baseline 3.

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 ('Return the published AI-readiness score for a website') and enumerates the payload (core score out of 100, grade, per-dimension breakdown, add-on scores, check statuses). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling scan_website and list_readiness_checks.

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 states the context ('Reads the cached public scan') and names the alternative with its selecting condition ('use scan_website to force a fresh measurement'). The agent knows exactly when to pick this tool over the sibling.

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