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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly states the tool checks (implying read-only) and details the scope (required and recommended fields, type correctness), but it does not explicitly state that it does not modify the website, nor does it describe the output format or any network behavior like authentication 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 primary action, and densely packs useful details (field lists, type-correctness example, and usage trigger). Every clause earns its place without 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?

The tool is simple (one parameter, no nested objects), and the description adequately covers purpose and usage. However, because there is no output schema, the description should have hinted at what the agent can expect (e.g., a report of missing/invalid fields), and it does not. Minor limitations (e.g., homepage vs. full site) are also absent.

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%, and the single 'url' parameter is already fully documented in the schema (including format 'including https://'). The description adds no additional parameter context, which is fine given the high schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Checks') and resource ('website for LocalBusiness Schema.org markup'), and lists the exact fields and type-correctness checks. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tool geo_scan, which likely focuses on geo-location scanning rather than structured data validation.

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 provides explicit guidance: 'Use whenever someone asks to check, audit, or improve a local business website's structured data / Rich Results eligibility.' It does not, however, mention when not to use it or point to alternatives like geo_scan, so it stops short of full exclusionary guidance.

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