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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond annotations by disclosing that it re-scans and specifying the readiness areas checked. It does not cover auth needs, runtime, or rate limits, but annotations reduce the burden.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with purpose and followed by a brief related-tools note. Every sentence earns its place with no repetition or padding.

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?

The output schema exists and the annotations already cover safety behavior, so the description need not explain return values. It gives enough scope and component detail for a one-parameter scan tool, though it could better distinguish usage from sibling audit tools.

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?

There is one required parameter, and schema description coverage is 100% with 'Site id from list_sites.' The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 a specific verb and resource: 'Re-scans a site for AI-agent readiness,' and lists the readiness dimensions (robots, llms.txt, structured data, speed). It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling audit tools such as run_site_audit or get_site_audit.

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 says what the tool does but gives no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. 'Related: list_sites, get_ai_visibility' names related tools, but it does not explain when this tool is preferable to alternatives.

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