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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It compensates by detailing the analysis scope, the wait_for_result behavior (waiting up to 60s, returning job_id if false), and a thorough pricing breakdown including combined payments. It does not mention potential errors or rate limits for anonymous users, but it covers significant behavioral aspects that an agent would need.

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 well-structured with the purpose first, followed by what is checked, then the wait_for_result behavior, and finally pricing. The pricing information is verbose but necessary for cost-aware decisions. It is reasonably concise and front-loaded with the key purpose, earning a strong score.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description must explain return values. It mentions 'scores and recommendations' and that wait_for_result=false returns a job_id, which provides a basic understanding. However, the exact structure of the scores is left vague, and with sibling tools like get_report, there is a gap about whether this tool returns a complete report or just a summary. Slightly incomplete but adequate for an analysis submission tool.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters with descriptions. The tool description adds minimal extra meaning: for wait_for_result it specifies 'up to 60s' (timeout context), and for enhance it repeats the combined pricing already present in the schema. This is a case where the description complements but does not significantly expand upon the schema.

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 action ('Submit a URL for AI-readiness analysis') and the specific resource being analyzed. It also enumerates the aspects checked (robots.txt, structured data, page speed, content quality), making the purpose specific. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_report or enhance_report, though the core action is sufficiently differentiating.

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 helpful context on how to use the tool, such as setting wait_for_result to wait for completion and the timeout of 60 seconds. It also explains pricing conditions for anonymous vs registered users. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_report, leaving the usage guidance implied rather than explicit.

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