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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full disclosure burden. It says the tool will 'scan' and report resource existence, but it does not disclose that this likely involves network fetches, whether it is read-only, what the 'q' parameter does, or how results are structured. The single sentence leaves behavioral traits largely unspecified.

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?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence. It front-loads the core function ('.well-known Scan') and immediately states the outcome. There is no filler or repetition; every word earns its place.

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 tool with an undocumented parameter SBuff and no behavioral notes, a one-sentence description is insufficient. The output schema provides some structure, but the agent still needs to know what input to supply and how to interpret the scan scope. The description lacks context about usage, expected input format, and limitations.

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% and the description never mentions the 'q' parameter. The agent is left to guess whether 'q' is a domain, a path, or something else entirely. The parameter semantics are completely undocumented, and the description does nothing to compensate.

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 has a specific verb ('Scan') and a precise resource target ('.well-known/* resources'), making it immediately clear that the tool enumerates well-known endpoints. It distinguishes itself from siblings like securitytxt or robots by focusing on resource existence rather than a single well-known file.

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 purpose implicitly signals when to use it (enumerate .well-known resources), but there is no explicit guidance on when to avoid it or why to prefer it over specialized siblings like securitytxt or robots. The context is implied rather than stated.

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