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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds the substantive behavior: it returns a 0-100 score plus the issues found, which is the only return-value disclosure since there is no output schema.

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?

A single sentence with the score and scale front-loaded, followed by a compact criteria list and the return contents. No filler; every clause carries 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?

Covers the return value (score plus issues) in the absence of an output schema, and annotations cover the safety profile. The only minor gap is that the optional key parameter's role in unlocking fixes and a deeper crawl is left entirely to the schema.

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 both parameters (url and optional key) are already documented in the schema, including the key's 15-page crawl behavior. The description adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 (score), resource (website), and the exact scale (0-100) plus the enumerated criteria checked (robots.txt AI crawler access, llms.txt, JSON-LD, sitemap, canonical, Open Graph, meta description). An agent can tell exactly what it produces and what it inspects.

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 is implied: pass a domain to get a readiness score. There are no siblings to disambiguate against and no explicit when-to-use/when-not or prerequisites (e.g., whether a live crawl is needed or the site must be public).

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