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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses useful traits: the result is permanent and public, the page includes evidence and a badge, the tool is free, and re-checks are rate-limited to once an hour per domain. It does not mention what happens on re-publish or failure, but the key side effects are covered.

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 four short sentences with no filler: the first sentence packs the core action and outcome, then usage conditions and a rate limit follow. Every sentence earns its place, and the main point is front-loaded.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers the purpose, the resulting URL pattern, prerequisite ordering, and a key restriction. It does not spell out the exact return payload, but the URL pattern provides enough context for the caller to know what to expect.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already defines url as 'The domain to publish a grade for'. The description reinforces this via the URL pattern but adds little semantic detail beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 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 names a specific verb ('Turn ... into'), a concrete resource (permanent public page at saymetry.com/grade/<domain>), and the two deliverable details (quoted evidence, embeddable SVG badge). The focus on publishing rather than checking distinguishes it from the sibling tool check_ai_readability.

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 gives explicit trigger conditions: use after check_ai_readability when the user wants a shareable link, wants to display the grade on their site, or wants a URL instead of raw results. It stops short of naming an alternative tool or stating when not to use it, so it is clear context without full exclusions.

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