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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds only 'Cheap' as a cost/performance hint and implies a read-only report, but does not describe side effects, network behavior, output handling, or failure modes. This is minimal disclosure for a tool with zero annotation support.

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 short sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds a genuinely useful operational hint about cost and timing. Every word earns its place.

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 single-parameter tool with an output schema, the core is simple, and the purpose plus usage hint may be enough to attempt a first call. However, with no annotations, the description still omits input semantics and any behavioral details, leaving the agent with only a skeletal understanding.

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 0%, and the description never mentions the url parameter, its expected format, or any constraints. The only hints are the tool name and the word 'site', which do not add meaning beyond the schema's minimal field title. The description fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 states a specific action ('Report') and resource ('what platform a site runs on and which strategy to use'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like crawl_site, crawl_status, and extract_page. It stops short of explicitly naming those alternatives, but the purpose is not vague.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to call this tool: 'call it before a large job', and adds the cost dimension with 'Cheap'. It does not enumerate alternatives or exclusions, but the narrow purpose and clear trigger make the guidance actionable.

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