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

The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: a per-call cost of $0.05, pricing currency (USDC on base), and the crawling mode ('exact BYOD' and 'no discovery'). It does not contradict the annotations, which already declare destructiveHint=false and readOnlyHint=false. However, 'BYOD' remains unexplained, and there is no mention of rate limits or failure behavior.

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 extremely concise—a single sentence that front-loads the core function and follows with cost and technical constraints. Every phrase adds value, and there is no redundant or filler content, making it easy to scan.

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?

Without an output schema, the description does not clarify the structure or scoring of the 'gap leads' that will be returned. The cost statement is ambiguous ('per call' could mean per restaurant or per request). Inputs are well covered by the schema, but the overall context is incomplete for a paid tool with side effects (external crawling).

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already provides detailed descriptions for all 7 parameters. The description does not add additional parameter-specific meaning beyond clarifying the high-level purpose (analyzing restaurant websites for booking gaps). The baseline of 3 is appropriate given the complete schema coverage.

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 'Analyze submitted restaurant websites for booking-channel gaps', which includes a specific verb, resource, and expected outcome. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'clinic-reception-gap-lead-finder' by targeting restaurants, though the 'BYOD' acronym is unexplained and slightly obscures the purpose.

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?

Usage guidance is implied rather than explicit. The phrase 'submitted restaurant websites' signals that users should provide the websites, and 'no discovery' indicates this tool does not find websites on its own. However, there is no explicit 'when to use this vs. alternative' statement, and no mention of scenarios where a different tool would be more appropriate.

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