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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds behavior those annotations cannot convey: the ~40 second synchronous window, the fallback of returning status 'running' with a run_id, the recommended polling delay, and the ordering of results (worst first). The authorization/terms constraint is also surfaced, which is meaningful for an open-world tool.

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 content is front-loaded with purpose, then preconditions, then parameter guidance, then return/polling behavior — a sensible order with no filler sentences. It is slightly dense, with the profiles guidance wrapped across several indented lines, which costs a little scannability but nothing is redundant.

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?

With no output schema, the description still tells the agent what comes back (findings with evidence, worst first) and how to handle the async case. Combined with the ownership precondition and the full profile vocabulary, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly and handle both return shapes.

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 0% and there are no enums, so the description carries the full burden — and it does: url is defined as the site's homepage with a format example, and profiles is described as optional site types with the actual allowed values enumerated (saas, health, mental-wellness, commerce, local), the paid-plan caveat, and a default-to-omit rule when unsure. This is materially more than the schema provides.

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 first line gives a specific verb (audit) plus the resource and scope (a public website, for search / AI-crawler / AI-agent readiness), which is distinct from the read-side siblings like get_findings, get_report, and recheck. An agent can tell immediately that this is the entry point that produces findings rather than retrieving or re-running them.

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 states an explicit precondition (only audit sites the user owns or is allowed to check, and ask first if ownership is unclear) and gives a clear when-to-use / when-not-to-use rule for profiles, including the concrete exclusion of agencies, consulting, and services firms from 'saas'. It also routes the agent onward: if the result is 'running', call get_findings with the run_id about 30 seconds later.

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