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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It states the tool passively reads what a browser sees, produces a graded score, and performs no attacks or subpage scanning—good safety and scope disclosure. It omits auth, rate-limit, and exact return-format details, but the read-only passive nature is clear.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and criteria, followed by a compact scope exclusion. Every phrase earns its place and the structure is easy to parse.

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 one-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description adequately covers what is evaluated, the output grade range (A–F), and key limitations. It lacks only routing guidance versus sibling security tools, which would make it fully complete.

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 coverage is 100% for the single 'domain' parameter, so the schema already documents its meaning and provides an example. The description adds no parameter-specific syntax or format guidance beyond what the schema contains, matching the baseline of 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (liest/bewertet) and resource (Startseite), and enumerates the security aspects checked. The scope exclusion ('Keine Angriffe, keine Unterseiten') clarifies boundaries. Sibling differentiation is only implicit (e.g., zertifikat_pruefen covers certificates alone), not explicit.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or alternative tools are named. The negative scope ('Keine Angriffe, keine Unterseiten') implies some exclusions, but an agent must infer that this is the general homepage security check versus siblings like zertifikat_pruefen or domain_haertung.

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