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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint, openWorldHint), the description adds that the audit is 'fresh' and 'public,' explicitly states it is 'Not an LLM ranking,' and notes 'No API key required.' These details enrich the behavioral profile without contradicting the 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 four short, information-dense sentences. It front-loads the core purpose, then adds relational, exclusions, and access prerequisites. Every sentence earns its place with zero redundancy.

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 the tool's simplicity (two optional alias parameters), full schema coverage, output schema presence, and robust annotations, the description covers the essential context. Minor gaps include lack of explicit timing for when a rescore is needed relative to audit_url, but overall it is complete for effective tool selection.

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 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for both parameters (url and domain), including the alias relationship and constraint to use only one. The description adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema states, so the baseline score of 3 is 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Run a fresh public structural audit (rescore) for a URL or domain.' It uses a specific verb ('run'), defines the resource ('URL or domain'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by noting 'Same engine as audit_url' and clarifying 'Not an LLM ranking.' This makes the purpose explicit and unique.

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 useful context: it is a rescore, uses the same engine as audit_url, and requires no API key. This implies when to use it but does not explicitly state 'use this instead of audit_url' or list exclusions. It lacks a clear when-not-to-use statement but offers enough contextual guidance to differentiate from siblings.

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