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

Annotations include readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds context about exact BYOD crawling, no web discovery, and pricing ($0.05/call), which resource beyond annotations. However, it does not disclose potential side effects beyond billing, data persistence, or the nature of 'crawling' behavior. It adds some value but not rich behavioral detail.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the purpose. It includes pricing and technical constraints without unnecessary fluff. However, the phrase 'exact BYOD crawling and no discovery' is somewhat jargon-heavy and could be clearer, slightly reducing the score.

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?

Given the tool has 7 parameters, no output schema, and moderate complexity, the description provides basic purpose and constraints but lacks information about return format, lead scoring, or what constitutes a 'gap.' The schema covers parameters, but the absence of output schema and limited behavioral context means the description is not fully complete.

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%, so all parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool's description does not add any parameter-specific semantic value; it only refers to analyzing websites. With full schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Analyze') and resource ('clinic websites') with a clear outcome ('reception-channel gaps'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'restaurant-booking-gap-lead-finder' by targeting clinics and reception channels, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 the tool is for analyzing submitted clinic websites, but it does not provide explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. The mention of 'exact BYOD crawling and no discovery' hints at constraints but not a clear use case relative to siblings. There is no explicit exclusion or comparison, so the guidance is merely implied.

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