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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: read-only, auto-indexes if not indexed, never executes side effects, and identifies supported steps, sources, risks, and confirmation requirements. This is substantive transparency. A minor gap is lack of mention of error handling or what happens if indexing fails, but overall it's well-covered.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every sentence adds value. It succinctly covers the tool's function, auto-indexing behavior, and its non-execution guarantee without redundancy. Ideal length and structure.

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?

The tool has only two simple parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description is the main source of context. It sufficiently explains what the tool does, how it behaves, and what it returns (steps, sources, risks, confirmation). It's nearly complete, though it could clarify the output format (e.g., text vs. structured data), which would make it a 5.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add meaningful parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema, but it doesn't need to given the high coverage. The description's mention of 'natural-language request' and 'site' aligns with the existing parameter descriptions.

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: turning a natural-language request into a grounded, read-only AgentReady plan for a website. The verb 'turn into' and resource 'website' are specific, and the mention of 'plan' distinguishes it from siblings like ask_site (which likely answers questions) and get_site_capabilities (which lists capabilities).

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: for planning a request against a website in a read-only manner. It explicitly notes that it never executes side effects, implying it's for planning rather than execution. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, so it stops short of a full 5.

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