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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing that results are organized by section, that scoping sections shortens the answer, and that every issue carries a stable code trackable across scans — useful output-behavior context.

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?

Front-loaded with the scope statement, then the section enumeration, then the sections-scoping hint and the stable-code note. The long middle enumeration earns its place by previewing the section taxonomy, though the single run-on sentence is dense.

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 an output schema present, the description needn't explain returns, and it correctly focuses on scope, section behavior, and issue-code stability. The one meaningful omission is sibling routing, but for a read-only audit tool with full schema and annotation coverage the definition is otherwise sufficient.

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%, so the schema already documents url and sections (including the 'Default: all' behavior). The description's human-readable section names loosely map to the enum values but add no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides; 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 verb and resource ('deep audit of a page') and enumerates exactly what is measured by section, so an agent knows the scope of the audit. However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling scan_page, which sounds like the same operation, leaving the agent to guess which is the deeper scan.

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 only guidance is parameter-level: 'Pick sections to keep the answer short, or leave them out for all.' There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or routing against the many siblings (scan_page, scan_html, get_site_audit, check_urls) that an agent must choose between.

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