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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the clarification 'public website', which reinforces the openWorldHint but does not go further to describe outcomes like output structure or potential network dependencies. It neither contradicts nor enriches the annotations meaningfully, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 that immediately states the action and scope, then lists the output dimensions. Every word contributes to clarity, with no filler or redundant phrasing.

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?

The tool is a read-only scanner with a clear input set and an output schema (indicated by the context signals). The description sufficiently communicates the purpose and the dimensions evaluated, and the annotations cover safety. While it does not explicitly mention the output shape, the presence of an output schema means the description does not need to, making this adequate.

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?

The input schema covers all three parameters (websiteUrl, niche, city) with descriptions, and the description does not add any parameter-specific details beyond what is already in the schema. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3; the description adds no extra semantic value for parameters.

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 clearly states the verb 'Scan' with a specific resource ('public website') and enumerates the six dimensions it scores. It stands apart from the sibling tools, which are mostly get_* or run_* operations with different focuses, leaving no ambiguity about what this tool does.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling scanning tools like run_competitor_intake_scanner or run_front_door_benchmark. It does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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