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

The annotations already establish that this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, closed-world operation. The description adds context the annotations cannot: scans run in asynchronous batches and take days rather than minutes, so the caller must not block on a result. The statement that already-scanned sites are not re-queued corroborates the idempotent hint and explains the deduplication behavior concretely.

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 short sentences with no filler. The action and its constraint come first, the latency warning second, the deduplication behavior last — a front-loaded order that matches the order in which an agent needs the 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?

For a simple three-parameter queueing tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the crucial unknowns: asynchronous latency and deduplication of previously scanned sites. It could add a word on whether any confirmation or identifier is returned and how to later verify results via check_site, but nothing essential to making the call is missing.

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?

All three parameters are already documented at 100% schema description coverage, so the description carries no burden here. It adds nothing about the `note`, `agent`, or accepted URL/domain format of `site`, leaving the schema to do all the work. Baseline 3 applies when the schema is fully covered.

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: 'Queue a website that Botworthy hasn't scanned yet.' The scoping condition (only unscanned sites) makes the action concrete. It does not, however, name or differentiate itself from the siblings check_site and report_visit, so an agent must infer the boundary itself.

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 implies the right moment to call it — a site not yet scanned — and warns 'don't wait for it' because scans take days. That is useful operational guidance. What is missing is explicit routing: an agent should presumably call check_site first to learn whether a site has already been scanned before requesting a scan, and nothing states that or names the alternative.

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