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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint: true and openWorldHint: true. The description adds valuable behavioral context by listing the exact checks performed and the type of output (mini-verdict), going beyond the annotations. No contradictions with 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?

Two sentences efficiently convey the purpose, the specific checks, the output type, and a pointer to the full tool. Every word earns its place; no filler or redundancy.

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?

For a 2-parameter read-only tool with annotations, the description sufficiently covers the core functionality, lists the checks, and notes its abbreviated nature. Even without an output schema, the 'mini-verdetto' term sets expectations. It could specify the verdict format but is otherwise complete.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for url and language. The description adds no new parameter details beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 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 clearly states the tool performs 4 essential AI agent readiness checks (robots.txt, AI bot/Content-Signal rules, llms.txt, structured data) and returns a mini-verdict. It uses a specific verb ('Esegue') and resource ('prontezza per gli agenti AI su un sito'), and explicitly distinguishes itself from Sequel's full agent-ready tool.

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 explicitly marks the tool as a quick sample ('È un assaggio') and points to the full report on the agent-ready tool of Sequel. This provides a clear when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use distinction, guiding the agent toward the appropriate tool for full analysis.

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