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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds genuinely new facts: the scan is read-only, results are cached for 24 hours, and it does not execute an agent against the site. It also describes the return payload (score, failed checks with fixes, passed checks). Missing are any auth/quota or freshness caveats beyond the cache note, so it stops short of a 5.

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 definition leads with the purpose and then lists checks, caveats and outputs in a compact block with no filler. It runs long in a single sentence, which slightly hurts scanability, but every clause carries information.

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 carries the burden of describing results and does so (score, failed checks with fixes, passed checks). Combined with the caching note, the non-execution caveat and the scoring split, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description earns extra credit by explaining why the job parameter matters: 60 core points plus 40 for the job, and that omitting it triggers detection. That meaning is not fully conveyed by the enum alone.

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 ('Audit a website for AI agents and AI search') and enumerates the concrete checks it performs (robots.txt AI rules, bot walls, SSR content, structured data, llms.txt, sitemap, pricing/signup, OpenAPI, MCP). This is far more specific than the title alone and lets an agent distinguish it from get_checklist, get_fixes, get_standard and lookup_vendor.

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?

It makes the intended use clear (score a site's agent readiness) and adds one valuable boundary: it does not run an agent on the site. However, it never routes the agent to the sibling tools that obviously follow from a scan (get_fixes, get_checklist, get_standard) or states when not to use this tool, so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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