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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose useful behavior: it is free, capped at 3 rows, and returns only public business info with no emails. It does not describe the return format, any rate limits, or why only a sample is returned.

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 that front-loads the key fact ('FREE') and packs scope, sample size, and data constraints with no wasted words.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers cost, size, and data content, which is most of what an agent needs. It lacks only a pointer to the full sibling pack and any note on output shape.

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 there is no parameter surface for the description to compensate for. Baseline 4 applies for a parameterless tool.

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?

Names a specific resource ('broken-sites lead pack') and its scope ('3-row sample'), which distinguishes it from the sibling broken_sites_leads full pack. It never explicitly routes to that sibling, but 'sample' clearly signals the reduced version.

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?

'FREE' plus 'sample' implies this is a preview/trial before committing to the full pack, which is usable guidance. However, it never names broken_sites_leads as the alternative or states when to prefer one over the other, leaving the routing to inference.

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