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

Annotations already indicate read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context: the method (public HTML and HTTP headers), no login requirement, and the exact cost per call ($0.01). This goes beyond the minimal annotation disclosure and does not contradict it.

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?

Two concise sentences deliver the full purpose, detection categories, technical method, use case, and pricing. Every phrase is purposeful, with no filler or redundancy.

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 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently conveys what is detected, how it works, and why you'd use it. It stops short of describing the output format, but for this simple detection task, the implied response (list of detected technologies) is reasonable.

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 already provides 100% coverage of both parameters (websites list and max concurrency) with descriptions. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline score 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 the specific verb 'Detect' and clearly defines the resource: technologies a website runs, enumerating categories (CMS, ecommerce, analytics, etc.). It naturally distinguishes from the sibling tool 'tech-stack-change-detector' by focusing on current stack rather than changes.

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?

It states the intended use ('Built for sales targeting and competitive research') and key constraints ('No browser, no proxies, no login'). However, it doesn't explicitly mention when to use an alternative like tech-stack-change-detector for change tracking, so guidance is strong but not fully exclusive.

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