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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds genuinely new operational context: the check loads the site like a real browser, takes up to roughly a minute, never mutates the site, fails without a score when blocked, and is subject to daily rate limits per person and per website. That is exactly the beyond-annotations detail an agent needs.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb, resource and return values, then usage triggers, then scope and limits. Every sentence carries information, though the enumeration of six audit areas is slightly list-heavy for the marginal benefit it provides.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description compensates fully by describing the score, the capped problem list, and the accompanying rationale. Runtime expectation, failure behavior, and rate limits are all covered, so an agent knows what to expect before and after the call.

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 description coverage is 100% – the schema already documents the url and gives example formats. The description adds no syntax or format guidance beyond that, so the baseline of 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 ('Checks a public small-business website with Sitecomb's digital audit') and immediately describes the output shape (score out of 100, up to three problems with reasons). An agent can distinguish this from the sibling explain_area, which is about explaining an area rather than running a check.

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 explicit trigger conditions, including the user phrasings that should route here ('is my website any good', 'why isn't my site bringing in customers', 'audit my website'). It also names the conditions under which the tool cannot help (site down or blocking automated checkers).

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