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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, open-world operation. Beyond that, the description adds useful behavior: it opens the external website, returns specific extracted fields plus a free website check report, and instructs the agent to ask the owner for missing data. It does not cover failure modes, rate limits, or extraction accuracy.

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 two tight sentences with no wasted wording. It front-loads what the tool does, then immediately states how to use the result.

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 simple, read-only, single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains what is returned and how to use it. The main gap is that it does not describe the website parameter's expected format or any failure behavior.

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 schema has zero percent description coverage for the single required website parameter. The description only implies that it is a business website, without clarifying URL format, whether a scheme is required, or other constraints beyond the schema's min/max length.

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 states a specific action and resource: it opens a business website and returns extracted details (name, phone, email, city, state, description) plus a website check report. It also relates itself to submit_listing, but does not distinguish itself from other sibling tools such as verify_site.

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 gives clear usage context: use the returned fields to prepare submit_listing and ask the owner for anything missing. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternative tools for overlapping website-checking needs.

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