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

Adds real context beyond annotations: it is free, stores nothing, returns no score, and reads only public pages. Annotations only cover readOnly/openWorld. It stops short of describing latency, rate limits, or output format, but for a lightweight instant check the disclosure is substantive.

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 tightly-packed sentences: what it checks front-loaded, then cost/storage constraints and the routing to request_audit. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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 1-param read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers scope, the five checks, privacy behavior, and the sibling alternative. Lacking only a hint of what the response looks like, which is minor given the schema's simplicity.

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?

One parameter at 100% schema coverage (baseline 3). The description adds that the check is performed 'from its public pages', clarifying the scope of the single 'website' input beyond the schema's domain-format note.

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 precise verb+resource ('check whether AI systems can read a website') and enumerates the five concrete checks performed. Names the sibling request_audit and distinguishes its scope (full audit, scored, human-reviewed).

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?

Explicitly routes to the alternative: use request_audit for the scored, human-reviewed full audit. The contrast between 'free, no score, nothing stored' and the paid full audit makes the selection condition unambiguous.

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