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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety and repeatability are covered. The description usefully adds which signals are evaluated, but says nothing about whether the rescan is synchronous, slow, or rate-limited — a real concern for a scan-triggering tool.

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-loaded with the purpose and the scan scope in a single tight sentence; the 'Related:' sentence is short and adds some navigational value. Minimal waste, though the related-tools line is the least load-bearing part.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the scope of the scan is stated. What is missing is differentiation from run_site_audit/get_site_audit, which an agent selecting among readiness tools genuinely needs.

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?

Only one parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Site id from list_sites'), so the schema fully carries parameter meaning. The description contributes nothing beyond it, which is the baseline case.

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 (re-scans), resource (site), and enumerates the readiness dimensions checked (robots, llms.txt, structured data, speed). That is enough to distinguish it in kind from siblings, though it never contrasts itself with the similarly-named 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 'Related: list_sites, get_ai_visibility' line implies the siteId source and a neighboring visibility tool, and 're-scans' implies use after changes. But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not, and no routing guidance against run_site_audit, the closest alternative.

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