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

The description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond the annotations: it clarifies the operation is bounded and non-persisting, does not execute JavaScript, does not submit forms, does not create a RegSentry record, and does not make a legal determination. This is valuable context for an agent deciding whether the tool's results are sufficient, and it complements the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations without contradiction.

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 sentences with zero wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the action, scope, and outputs; the second lists exclusions in a compact enumeration. Every phrase contributes to agent understanding.

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?

The tool has an output schema, fully documented parameters, and annotations covering safety and idempotency. The description fills in the remaining behavioral gaps (what is and isn't inspected, what is not executed). An agent has everything needed to decide whether to call this tool and what to expect from 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters well-documented in the schema. The description reinforces the 'authorized public domain' requirement but does not add new parameter-level semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the full burden.

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 ('performs a bounded, non-persisting GET'), a resource ('authorized public domain's homepage'), and concrete outputs (tracker markup, consent signals, verification gaps). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by listing what it does not do (run JavaScript, submit forms, create records, make legal determinations), so an agent can tell it apart from get_remediation_playbook and interpret_consent_evidence.

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?

The description gives clear context of what the tool does and its limitations, but it does not explicitly name sibling tools or provide when-to-use/alternative routing. The 'does not' exclusions imply when not to use this tool, but an agent is left to infer which sibling might be appropriate. This is implied usage guidance, not explicit.

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