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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds useful traits beyond the schema: 'Free, instant, no signup', and it clarifies that the tool evaluates specific aspects (structured data, llms.txt, crawlability, titles, answer-shaped content). The word 'check' implies a read-only operation, and 'Grade whether' indicates the outcome is an assessment, though the exact output format is not detailed.

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, no filler. The main purpose and evaluation criteria are front-loaded, followed by concrete use cases and the free/instant/no-signup value. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a simple single-parameter read-only checker, the description covers what the tool does, what it evaluates, when to use it, and access characteristics. It does not explicitly describe the output format, but 'Grade whether...' sufficiently implies an assessment result, and there is no output schema to clarify further.

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?

The single parameter 'url' already has full schema coverage with a clear description and example. The tool description adds no extra parameter-level meaning, which is acceptable since the schema fully documents the required input. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Grade') and a clear resource ('whether AI engines... can read and quote a website'), then lists the concrete criteria checked. It is immediately distinguishable from the unrelated sibling tools (get_offer_sheet, join_affiliate_program, etc.).

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool: when the user asks how visible their site is to AI, whether ChatGPT can read their site, or how to improve AI visibility. It does not mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but no similar sibling tool exists, so this is a clear and sufficient use-case definition.

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