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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: it reads robots.txt, traverses sitemaps, discloses pricing logic, and clarifies the output format. No contradiction with annotations.

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 well-structured sentences with no wasted text. Critical information is front-loaded, and each sentence serves a distinct purpose.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema and annotations, the description provides all necessary context: what the tool does, how pricing works, and the connection to start_paid_audit. No gaps remain.

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?

While schema coverage is 100%, the description adds meaning by contextualizing the URL as 'robots-permitted sitemap' and explaining the branding parameter's role in white-label quotes. This supplements the schema's 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: before an audit crawl, it reads robots.txt and sitemaps, then returns page scope and pricing quotes. It distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning the quoteId needed for start_paid_audit.

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 implies use before starting a paid audit and mentions the required quoteId. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with alternatives like list_checks or get_audit_status.

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