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

Annotations already disclose readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, and the description adds valuable cost/caching behavior: 'cached report is free, otherwise it spends one fresh-audit slot.' This goes beyond annotations. No contradiction with annotations; openWorldHint aligns with the fresh-audit caveat.

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?

Compact and well-structured: purpose is front-loaded, followed by usage guidance and cost note. Every sentence carries distinct information with no filler or repetition.

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 read-only tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the return format, usage context, and cost implications. Nothing an agent needs to select or invoke the tool correctly 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 description coverage is 100%, with the url parameter fully described as 'Absolute http(s) URL of ONE page.' The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 resource and output format: the complete structured JSON audit report with every layer and check including status, evidence, and fix text. It explicitly contrasts with lekta_audit's shorter human-readable output, making the distinction clear even among multiple siblings.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'USE THIS when a program (not a human) consumes the result, or when you need a field lekta_audit does not print.' It also states when not to use it: 'DO NOT use it for a quick human-readable verdict,' naming lekta_audit as the alternative.

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