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

The annotations already mark the tool read-only and open-world, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: it analyzes the homepage, inspects multiple external signals, returns a score with concrete improvements, and explicitly delimits its scope. This goes well beyond the structured annotation information.

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?

Three sentences carry the full definition with no filler: the action and resource come first, followed by the specific checks, then the output, and finally a valuable negative scope. Every sentence earns its place and the structure is easy to scan.

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 description is sufficiently complete for a single-parameter, read-only tool: it lists inputs, checks, and output type ('puntuación y mejoras concretas'). With no output schema, a slightly more detailed description of the score format would be ideal, but the current text is adequate for safe invocation.

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 fully documents the single parameter 'web' with an example and type, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds a small amount of context (public homepage) but does not materially improve on the schema's parameter explanation, warranting the baseline score.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Analiza la portada de cualquier web pública') and enumerates the concrete checks performed: robots.txt, JavaScript-free rendering, schema.org, sitemap, and llms.txt. It also clarifies what the tool does not measure, making it clearly distinguishable from sibling tools that handle content pages or diagnostics.

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 gives a clear context for use ('cualquier web pública') and explicitly states an exclusion: it does not measure whether the web appears in assistant responses. However, it does not name sibling tools or provide explicit when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guidance; the differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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