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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context: deterministic processing, robots-aware crawling, no LLM involvement, no legal verdicts, and a per-call cost with payment method. This goes beyond the structured annotations without contradicting them.

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 purpose, then adds key behavioral constraints and pricing in a compact list. No wasted words; every phrase contributes to understanding the tool.

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 has 6 parameters and no output schema, yet the description does not explain what the returned rows ('useful rows') contain or what a 'lead' means. It covers purpose and constraints but lacks details on output format, which is significant given the absence of an output schema. The detailLevel parameter hints at selectors and excerpts, but the description itself does not clarify the return value.

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 100% with each parameter already explained. The description does not need to add parameter-specific details, and it doesn't. Baseline of 3 is appropriate as the schema carries the semantic load.

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 tool is a 'BYOD compliance scanner for observed AI transparency signals on a submitted URL.' This specifies the verb (scanner), resource (AI transparency signals), and distinguishes it from the sibling accessibility/privacy scanner. Additional qualifiers like 'no legal verdicts' further clarify its scope.

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 implies when to use the tool (for deterministic, robots-aware AI transparency scanning) and what it avoids (LLMs, legal verdicts). However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use it, leaving usage context mostly implied.

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