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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'boundedly refreshed' hints that a read may trigger some update and 'Unknown evidence remains unknown' hints at missing-data semantics, but neither auth requirements, refresh limits, nor failure behavior is disclosed.

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?

Two short sentences, verb+resource front-loaded, so it is tight. But 'boundedly refreshed' and 'Unknown evidence remains unknown' are vague jargon that costs clarity without adding actionable detail.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what the report contains, what 'unknown' evidence means, and whether calling it can mutate state via refresh. None of that is present, leaving the agent under-informed.

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 0% and only one parameter exists. The description adds that the domain is 'public' and that evidence is scoped to it, but provides no format, validation, or expected-domain syntax to compensate for the missing schema 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?

States a clear verb (read) and resource (public AI web-readiness evidence report) scoped to a public domain. However, it does not distinguish itself from siblings like scan_ai_web_readiness or evaluate_ai_web_readiness, and 'normalized' in the name is never explained.

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 phrase 'Read an existing ... report' weakly implies you must already have a report, hinting at a contrast with scan_ai_web_readiness, but no when-to-use, when-not, or alternative tool is named. The agent must infer routing entirely.

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