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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: read-only, no account or charge, private/local targets rejected, scan is bounded, and a genuine side effect is disclosed ('observations may be saved to public scan history'). It omits rate limits, timeouts, or what 'bounded' concretely means.

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?

Compact and front-loaded with the 'FREE EVALUATION FIRST' qualifier, and every clause carries information (cost, safety, side effect, routing). Slightly jargon-dense in the 'normalized evidence report' phrase, but no wasted sentences.

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 one-parameter read-only scan with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers cost, safety, target restrictions, side effects, and next steps. Return-shape detail is not needed absent an output schema, though what the report actually contains is only loosely implied.

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% and there is only one parameter, so the schema already documents 'domain' fully. The description adds no syntax, normalization, or format guidance beyond what the schema provides; baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('run a bounded public website readiness scan') and names its output artifact ('normalized evidence report'), which maps to the sibling get_normalized_report. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the close sibling evaluate_ai_web_readiness, so the distinction must be inferred.

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?

'FREE EVALUATION FIRST' positions this as the entry-point scan and it promises an 'explicit next-tool recommendation,' giving clear ordering guidance. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it or naming the alternative for private/authenticated targets beyond rejection.

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