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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Capture a site mirror' implies a write/persist operation but says nothing about what is created, where it is stored, side effects, permissions, or reversibility; only 'attestation' hints at an authorization precondition.

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 sentence with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. The economy is good, though the parenthetical packs cryptic terms that reduce readability.

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 5-parameter tool with zero annotation coverage, no output schema, and 0% parameter documentation, the description is markedly under-specified. An agent cannot reliably know required inputs, valid values, or the difference between the fixture and public-URL modes.

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 0% across 5 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely fails. It obliquely references 'shapes', a 'public URL', and 'attestation' (mapping to url, shape, attestation), but leaves 'site' (the required param) and 'source' entirely unexplained.

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 verb+resource ('Capture a site mirror') is identifiable, but the parenthetical is opaque jargon ('fixture cooperating/external shapes') that an agent cannot decode without domain knowledge. It does distinguish the tool as a mirror-capture operation from verify_receipt or drift_check, but only weakly.

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 gestures at two modes (fixture shapes vs. a public URL with attestation), which hints at when each input form applies, but gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and never names or contrasts the sibling tools (drift_check, rehearse, verify_receipt).

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