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

The description discloses the key non-obvious behavior that annotations can't convey: this call may kick off a background scan and must be polled after ~20 seconds. This also explains why readOnlyHint=false on a 'check' tool, aligning with the annotations rather than contradicting them. It stops short of describing scan duration limits, failure modes, or whether polling is billed.

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, front-loaded with the outcome and followed by the async polling instruction. Every clause carries information; no filler.

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, and the description compensates by naming exactly what comes back (score, grade, conformance, fixes) plus the scan/poll lifecycle. For a single-parameter tool this is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly.

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?

Only one parameter and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents 'domain' as a bare public hostname with an example. The description says only 'a website', which adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Check whether AI agents can find, read and act on a website') and enumerates the deliverables: score out of 100, grade, AgentReady 1.0 conformance, and prioritized fixes. It is unmistakably distinct from the provider/article/page siblings.

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 clear operational context: a scan starts automatically when none is fresh, and the caller should re-invoke in 20 seconds while it runs. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but no sibling overlaps this capability, so the guidance is effectively complete for its use case.

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