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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), and the description adds substantial non-obvious behavior: the shape of the result (score, issues, quick wins), the anonymous-call side effect of minting a claim link, what that link unlocks (a workspace pre-loaded with the domain and a started trial), its single-use constraint and 72-hour expiry. None of this is derivable from the schema or annotations.

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?

Front-loads what the tool does and what it returns before the caveat and the claim-link mechanics. Every sentence earns its place: the negative scope prevents misuse, and the claim-link sentences cover behavior an agent cannot infer elsewhere.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by naming the return payload (score, issues, quick wins). Combined with the explicit scope caveat and the full claim-link lifecycle, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly and to explain the result to a user.

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?

With one parameter at 100% schema description coverage ('The domain to score, e.g. example.com'), the schema already carries the meaning and the description adds nothing about domain format, subdomain handling, or whether protocol/path is accepted. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (score), a specific resource (a website's homepage readiness for AI search engines), and enumerates the three dimensions checked (crawler access, structured data, content signals). It also draws an explicit boundary that no sibling draws: 'an on-page readiness check, not a measurement of real AI citations,' which separates it from run_citation_check, list_citations and check_citation_readiness.

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 negative scoping ('not a measurement of real AI citations') gives clear context for when this tool is the right choice versus citation-measurement tools. It also documents the unsigned/claim-link flow for anonymous callers. It never names a concrete sibling to use instead (e.g. check_citation_readiness for the narrower access check), so routing is implied rather than explicit.

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