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

Adds behavior beyond the annotations: it names the latency budget ('waits up to ~45 seconds') and the return semantics ('report what changed'), which tell the agent this is a synchronous, long-ish call that produces a diff. It does not explain what happens if the 45 seconds elapse, though readOnlyHint=false on a re-scan is consistent with the description of triggering fresh work.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action, followed by the trigger context and latency in a compact clause. Nothing is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description should say more about what the result looks like and what occurs on timeout or failure. 'Report what changed' gestures at the return value, but the ~45-second cap is left unexplained and the prerequisite that the site be monitored first is only implicit.

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 already documents the single 'site' parameter as 'Site id, domain or URL'. The description adds only the constraint that the site must already be 'monitored', implying add_site as a prerequisite, but no further format guidance.

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 fresh scan of one of your monitored sites') plus the added value of reporting change, which is more than the title suggests. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling scan_site, leaving an agent to guess which one to pick.

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 parenthetical 'e.g. after deploying a fix' implies a usage trigger, which is better than nothing. But there are no exclusions and no named alternative — scan_site and get_site_status are obvious candidates the description never addresses.

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