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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only grading operation but never states that explicitly, nor does it cover permissions, rate limits, whether the target must be publicly reachable, or what the grade result looks like.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first three words, and the total length is short. The fragment 'Scope: check' is redundant with the tool name and does not earn its place.

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 read-check with no output schema, the definition is minimally adequate but leaves the agent guessing about the nature of the returned grade and about when to prefer check_security. With no annotations to lean on, a little more behavioral context would have made it 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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Full URL including scheme'), so the schema already does the work. The description adds no further meaning about URL format or edge cases, which makes the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 names a specific resource (Content-Security-Policy) and action (grade), which is clear enough to distinguish it from most siblings like check_cors or check_seo_audit. However, it does not differentiate itself explicitly from the adjacent check_security tool, and the trailing 'Scope: check' adds nothing to the verb+resource statement.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as check_security, nor any prerequisite or exclusion. 'Runs the same code the tool page runs' hints at parity with a web UI but gives no usage decision guidance.

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