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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds real value with an explicit capability limitation (WAF/User-Agent blocking cannot be verified) that an agent could otherwise misreport as a pass. It does not describe the report structure or severity/failure semantics, which keeps it at 4 rather than 5.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the scope ('one public product page') before the checklist, and ends with the one caveat that matters. No filler and nothing repeated from the title or annotations.

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 read-only, one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description gives enough about what is inspected to predict the findings. The notable remaining gap is the shape of the returned report (per-check status, severity, remediation hints), which an agent would have to discover at call time.

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?

There is a single parameter and the schema already carries a full description covering the http(s) public URL constraint and the SHOPAIREADY_ALLOW_LOCAL escape hatch. The description adds no further semantics about the url argument, so this sits at the baseline 3 for high schema coverage.

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 ('Audits one public product page') and then enumerates the exact check categories: JSON-LD Product/Offer, price/currency/availability coherence, GTIN/MPN check digit, images, return/shipping markup, and bot accessibility. This is plainly distinguishable from the sibling feed validators and check_store_ai_readiness, which operate at feed/store level rather than on a single rendered page.

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?

'one public product page' establishes the unit of work, implicitly routing multi-page/store-level work to check_store_ai_readiness, and the closing 'Cannot verify WAF/User-Agent blocking' sets a clear expectation boundary. It stops short of naming a sibling alternative or stating an explicit when-not-to-use condition, so it does not reach a 5.

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