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

Annotations already mark it read-only and idempotent; the description goes further by disclosing the operational cost ('Makes up to 19 requests ... 6 s each'), per-caller/per-host rate limiting, the stable-alert property, and the no-outbound fixture behavior. For a tool with no output schema, this behavioral detail is especially valuable.

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?

The description is information-dense and mostly valuable, but the opening JSON-RPC payload for whoami is not about score_card and pushes the actual purpose statement later. It is not a tautology or padded, but it is less front-loaded than it could be.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description explains return content, scoring weights, request budget, rate limits, fixture behavior, and an example URL. For a complex tool that aggregates four checks, this is a complete picture for an agent deciding whether and how to call it.

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 schema already covers the single url parameter at 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a concrete URL example and a fixture option, but the 'or {} to score the built-in fixture' suggestion conflicts with the schema's required ['url'], which could cause an agent to construct an invalid call.

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 a precise verb and resource: 'Run handshake_report, tools_list_report, error_conformance and discovery_report against one endpoint and return a single verdict'. It specifies the output (score, letter grade, findings by severity, section details) and therefore clearly differentiates the aggregator from its sibling report tools.

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 gives concrete selection guidance: 'This is the tool to call from a monitor' and positions it as the 'FIRST CALL', while naming the individual reports it replaces. It does not explicitly state when to prefer a sibling report alone, so it stops short of a full when/when-not matrix.

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