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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: the two operating modes gated on ownerConfirmedFacts, the fact that output is installable production artifacts, and an explicit honesty constraint ('No fabricated prices or fake checkout/UCP claims'). It does not mention auth or rate limits.

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?

Three dense sentences with the core transformation front-loaded and the guardrail last; little waste, though the artifact list and the mode condition make it slightly overloaded for a single paragraph.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. For a nested-object, 3-param generation tool the description covers both modes, the artifact types, and output honesty constraints; the main remaining gap is what the tool returns in the unconfirmed-facts mode.

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% and the schema descriptions already explain merchantProfile, ownerConfirmedFacts and paymentResourceUrl. The description reinforces the merchantProfile/ownerConfirmedFacts gating but adds no new syntax or format detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 transformation: turning a public merchant website audit into prioritized implementation tasks and installable artifacts (JSON-LD, llms.txt, sitemap.xml, robots.txt). It is clearly distinct from audit/diagnose/probe/verify siblings in what it produces, though it never names those siblings to route the agent explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied — the agent infers this runs after an audit and that supplying merchantProfile with ownerConfirmedFacts=true switches it into the 'actual installable artifacts' mode. No explicit when-to-use vs. when-not, no prerequisites (e.g., must the audit be run first?), and no alternative tools named.

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