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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false), it discloses the async contract ('returns immediately with audit_id and status "pending" — it does NOT wait'), that each call costs a real browser run, that it is rate limited, and the mapping of error codes to retry-later behavior.

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?

Front-loads the purpose, then usage, then the async return contract, then constraints and error semantics, in four short blocks with no filler. Dense but every sentence carries operative information.

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?

Output schema exists so return values needn't be described, yet the description still covers the async lifecycle, the handoff to get_conversion_report, input validation rules, and rate-limit recovery — everything an agent needs to call it correctly.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds real constraints not present in the schema: public http(s) only, task length 10-1000 characters, and the phrasing rule to write purchase-like goals as 'reach checkout without buying'. It also gives worked examples of valid task strings.

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?

Starts with a specific verb+resource ('Start a real Agent Conversion audit') and explains exactly what happens mechanically: an autonomous agent browses the site, attempts the task, and is scored 0-100. It also names the sibling get_conversion_report, so the agent can distinguish the launcher from the result-fetcher.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use framing with two concrete example questions, plus hard exclusions: no localhost/private IPs/credentials/custom ports, do not call repeatedly for the same url+task, and what the rate_limited/daily_limit/at_capacity codes mean. It routes the agent to get_conversion_report for polling.

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