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

Goes beyond annotations by reporting a concrete rate limit (10/hour/account), scoping the external effect ("reads your public pages; nothing on your site changes") and disclosing that a record is persisted in the account, which is consistent with readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false. It does not say whether the check completes synchronously or must be polled via get_site_check, which is the main remaining behavioral gap.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and result, then the safety scope, then the quota. Every sentence carries distinct information with no repetition of the title.

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?

Output schema exists so return values need no explanation, the single optional parameter is fully documented in schema, and quota plus non-destructiveness are covered. Missing is the run lifecycle: whether results arrive immediately or only via the get_site_check sibling after a delay.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already explains the domain format and the multi-site requirement in detail. The description only says "on one of your sites" and adds nothing about the parameter beyond the schema, so the baseline applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Run a new AI readability check on ... your sites") plus the persistence effect ("save it to your Goppa account"). The word "new" implicitly separates it from get_site_check, which reads an existing check, but no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Timing ("now") and the per-account quota give a usable context, but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over get_site_check, scan_site or run_ai_measurement, nor when not to run a fresh check (e.g. if a recent one exists).

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