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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a 0-100 score, lists the types of checks performed, and notes that each check comes with a concrete fix. This gives the agent a realistic expectation of input and output, though it does not describe edge cases like invalid URLs or rate limits.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every phrase adds value. The first sentence explains function and output; the second provides usage guidance. No redundant or extraneous information is present.

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 simple one-parameter schema and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does, how to invoke it, and what to expect in return (score range and per-check fixes). It is not exhaustive about return structure, but for a simple scan tool, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and call it 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?

The schema already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter (url) with a clear description ('Full URL of the website to check, including https://'). The description does not add additional parameter-specific semantics, 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 states a specific verb ('Checks') and a clear resource ('website readability and citability by AI systems'), and enumerates specific checks (llms.txt, Schema.org, robots.txt, content freshness, heading structure). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'local_business_check', which focuses on local business data.

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 says 'Use whenever someone asks to check, audit, or improve a website's AI/GEO visibility,' giving clear when-to-use conditions. It does not explicitly mention the sibling tool as an alternative or provide when-not-to-use exclusions, but the differentiation is implied by the tool's focus.

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