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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond those: it never fetches the page, reads stored data only, is free/quota-free, and returns nothing for unaudited URLs. There is no contradiction with the 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?

The description is front-loaded with the core transformation, then provides usage, limitation, and cost guidance in compact phrases. It is slightly redundant by saying both 'reads stored data only' and 'never fetches the page,' but overall 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?

For a single-parameter tool with strong annotations and no output schema, this description is complete. It explains what it produces, when to use it, what it cannot do, what happens for unaudited URLs, and the required next step (lekta_audit). No essential selection or invocation guidance 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single url parameter already includes a meaningful description: 'Absolute http(s) URL that was audited before.' The tool description reinforces that the URL must have been audited, but does not meaningfully extend the parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 clearly states a specific verb and resource: it turns the most recent stored audit of a URL into an ordered work plan with expected point recovery, hardest-hitting fixes first. It also differentiates itself from measurement tools by explicitly warning 'DO NOT use it to measure,' and distinguishes itself from lekta_audit by noting it returns nothing if the URL was never audited.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'USE THIS to decide what to change before touching the code.' It also gives a clear exclusion: 'DO NOT use it to measure — it never fetches the page,' and provides a fallback: call lekta_audit first if the URL was never audited.

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