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

Annotations provide openWorldHint: true, and the description adds behavioral context: payment per call ($5.00), x402 payload on payment_required, scan caching (1h TTL), and that returned code is 'working code you can apply directly.' No contradictions with annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then provides a TIP and additional details. It is somewhat lengthy but every sentence adds value, such as payment flow and content recommendations. Could be slightly more streamlined.

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?

Given 4 parameters with no output schema, the description covers returns (two-tier score projections, working code), payment handling, and integration with sibling tools. It does not detail error responses beyond payment, but overall is adequately 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%, so baseline 3. The description adds significant meaning: scan_id is described as reusing a crawl with 1h TTL, pages is ignored with scan_id, and format is 'optimized for Claude Code' for claude_code enum. This improves over schema alone.

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 purpose: 'Generate complete fix code for all AI visibility issues across AEO, GEO, and Agent Readiness.' It lists specific outputs (schema generation, robots.txt, etc.) and distinguishes itself from siblings by referencing scan_id from audit_site and suggesting scan_site first.

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 a TIP on using scan_id for instant response, advises running scan_site first, and explains the payment flow with x402. It gives clear context but could more explicitly contrast with sibling tools to say when not to use.

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