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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose the critical gating traits: payment is required (US$5.00 USDC on Base via x402, or 5000 sats via Cashu/L402), plus explicit content constraints (no personal names, no email addresses). This is substantive context beyond the schema. It omits delivery format and timing details, keeping it from a 5.

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?

Three compact sentences with the payload contents front-loaded, followed by privacy constraints and then pricing. Every clause carries information; the pricing/rail detail is dense but necessary given the payment model. No filler.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must convey what comes back, and it does by listing the returned fields and their exclusions. Payment requirements are covered, which matters with zero annotations. It does not describe volume, freshness, or delivery mechanism of the 'full pack', a minor remaining gap.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is no schema-level parameter meaning the description needs to compensate for. Nothing in the description adds or detracts from parameter understanding.

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 states exactly what the resource is: a full pack of small-business websites with verified passive-audit issues, and enumerates the fields included (business name, website, country, phone, issues). It implicitly distinguishes itself from the 'Free 3-row sample' sibling by contrasting 'Full pack' against the sample. It stops short of a crisp verb+scope statement, but the resource is unambiguous.

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?

It points to the free 3-row sample at /leads/broken-sites/sample, which is a partial alternative-routing signal toward the sibling broken_sites_leads_sample. However, it never states when to choose the full pack over the sample, or any prerequisites beyond payment. Usage is implied rather than prescribed.

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