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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by specifying what the audit actually evaluates (Discovery, Access, Usability, Semantic, Architecture, Safety) and the scope (119 checks), going beyond the structured annotations.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the second sentence efficiently expands on scope without repeating the tool name or schema content.

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 single-parameter audit tool with an output schema, the description is largely complete: it explains the purpose, scope, and evaluation dimensions. The only gap is the lack of explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over its siblings, which is a modest omission given the tool's clear name and scope.

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 only parameter, 'target', is already described as 'Target URL to audit'. The description redundantly says 'target URL' but adds no new semantic detail beyond the schema.

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 names a specific verb ('Execute'), a clearly defined resource ('full ARS 3.0 agent-readiness audit'), and a target ('a target URL'). It also enumerates the six evaluation dimensions, making the tool's purpose concrete and distinguishing it from the sibling tools.

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?

Usage context is implied by the word 'full' and the mention of '119 discrete open protocol checks', which suggests this is the comprehensive audit tool rather than a narrower sibling like glintbase_get_score or glintbase_simulate_flight. However, it never explicitly names alternatives or states when not to use this tool.

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