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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description earns credit by disclosing what the scan actually inspects and, notably, that it returns both 'what a buyer agent would see and what it cannot,' which is meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 tightly written sentences with zero filler. The core purpose and the list of checks are front-loaded, and the return behavior is stated last, so the agent gets the essential framing immediately.

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 two-parameter, read-only scan with no output schema, the definition covers purpose, inspected artifacts, and rough return content. Safety is handled by annotations, and the only real gap is that the outputFormat parameter and the exact shape of results are not elaborated.

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 50%: 'domain' is documented in the schema with an example, while 'outputFormat' relies only on its enum values with no description. The description adds no parameter-level detail at all, so it neither compensates for the gap nor goes beyond the schema; the self-explanatory enum keeps this at a baseline 3.

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 action (scan) on a specific resource (agentic readiness) and enumerates exactly what is checked: adagents.json, taxonomy tagging, audience segments, and a product/deals catalog. It is clearly scoped as a 'buyer agent' discoverability check, which conceptually separates it from the sibling run_publisher_revenue_audit, but it never names or contrasts with that sibling explicitly.

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?

'Free top-of-funnel scan' implies this is the low-cost entry-point check to run first, which is useful contextual guidance. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not instruction and no routing to alternatives such as the revenue audit, leaving the agent to infer the relationship between the two audit tools.

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