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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the auto-indexing side effect and enumerates return values, which is useful. But it stops short of covering auth needs, rate limits, or potential errors, leaving gaps for a tool that may mutate state by triggering indexing.

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 a single, information-dense sentence that covers the action, optional behavior, and return payload with zero filler. It is well-structured and 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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, a notable side effect, and return value contents. It is reasonably complete, though it lacks explicit usage alternatives and deeper behavioral caveats, which keeps it from a perfect score.

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 input schema already provides a full description of the domain parameter, including the ability to pass full URLs (100% coverage). The tool description adds no extra parameter context, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Return the AgentReady capability manifest for a website.' It lists the specific content of the manifest (freshness, read-only limits, schemas, MCP/HTTP endpoints), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like ask_site or refresh_site.

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?

The description implies when to use it by noting it automatically indexes unindexed sites, so it's useful for capability discovery. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like refresh_site or plan_site_action, nor any exclusions.

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