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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose the cost (5 credits) — a genuinely useful trait not available elsewhere. It says nothing, however, about authentication/permission needs, whether the scan is read-only and non-mutating, how long it takes, or what the result contains.

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 front-loaded sentence enumerating the scan targets with the credit cost parenthetically appended. Every clause carries information; there is 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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should ideally indicate the shape of the result (per-platform findings, scores, or citations) and any failure modes. It covers input scope and cost adequately but leaves the return value entirely unspecified.

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%, so both parameters (domain, brand_name) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning — it does not explain how brand_name interacts with domain or when the cross-check is needed — so the 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?

The description pairs a specific verb ("Scans") with concrete resources: review platforms, Google Business Profile, local NAP directories, and AI brand citations. This scope is clearly distinct from all siblings (DNS, noindex, tech stack, WHOIS, SEO audits), though it never explicitly names or contrasts with an alternative.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus the SEO/DNS siblings, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is only implied by the tool name and scanned-source list.

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