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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects. It explicitly states that the tool 'automatically enables compatible tests, triggers an initial scan, and captures a page screenshot,' and notes the write scope requirement and free plan limit. This goes well beyond a simple 'create' statement, though it does not cover failure modes or reversibility.

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 three sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the purpose, the second lists key side effects, and the third covers prerequisites and a recommended alternative. It is perfectly front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (7 params, 3 enums) and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description provides solid coverage: purpose, side effects, prerequisites, plan limits, and an ordering recommendation. The only notable omission is what happens on success (return value), but this is common for create tools and the description is otherwise complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds little parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema; it mentions 'website, API, or webshop' which maps to the type enum, and 'Use analyze_target first' echoes the type parameter description. The schema already documents all parameters thoroughly, so the description does not need to compensate.

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 clearly states the verb and resource: 'Add a new website, API, or webshop target for monitoring.' It also distinguishes the tool from siblings like update_target, delete_target, and analyze_target by focusing on the creation and onboarding scope.

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 explicit context: use to add a target and mentions prerequisites ('Requires write scope (Free plan: 1 target)'). It also explicitly names an alternative via 'Use analyze_target first to detect platform and get test recommendations.' However, it does not explicitly state when not to use (e.g., for updating existing targets), so it lacks full when-not guidance.

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