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

Even though annotations already declare readOnly/non-destructive, the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the data comes from a once-daily turbocheck report, the timestamp is in the response, and "keine Funde" only means the last report found nothing rather than that a scan is running now. That staleness disclosure is exactly the kind of trait annotations cannot express.

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?

Front-loads the purpose, then the provenance/staleness caveat, then the alternative. Each sentence carries a distinct, decision-relevant fact — the parentheses compact the coverage list instead of padding it, and nothing is redundant.

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 compensates by naming the returned finding categories and noting the response carries a timestamp. Combined with the read-only annotations and the single fully-documented parameter, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly and to interpret a clean result.

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 "domain" parameter is already documented in the schema ("Die Domain, z. B. example.com"). The description only refers to "einer Domain" generically and adds no format, validation, or scope detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ("Sicherheitsstatus einer Domain abrufen") and enumerates exactly what it covers — malware findings, vulnerabilities, publicly reachable files. It names a sibling (get_wordpress_hardening) as the tool for a related-but-different concern, so an agent can separate the two without opening either schema.

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?

Gives a clear routing rule: for the hardening state of WordPress itself, use get_wordpress_hardening instead. It also frames when the result should be trusted via the daily-report caveat. It stops short of positioning this against the other security-adjacent siblings (get_dns_security, scan_wordpress_vulnerabilities, get_ssl_status), so coverage is good but not exhaustive.

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