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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior, but it only says 'Run a full-cycle web verdict.' It does not state whether this is a read operation, whether it has side effects, what authentication is needed, or how long it runs. 'Full-cycle' hints at multi-step behavior but reveals no specifics.

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 a single sentence with no filler, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. It does not earn its place because it adds no meaning beyond the tool's name and leaves the agent without essential context.

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 tool's complexity (4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is radically incomplete. It fails to explain what a verdict is, how the parameters relate, what the output looks like, or what 'full-cycle' means in practice, making correct invocation nearly impossible.

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?

The input schema has four parameters (url, surface, register, max_pages) with zero descriptions, and the tool description mentions none of them. An agent cannot infer that url is the target webpage, surface is likely a browsing environment, register denotes a mode, or max_pages limits crawling.

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 'Run a full-cycle web verdict' provides a verb and a resource, but 'verdict' is undefined jargon and 'full-cycle' does not clarify the operation. It does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like list_surfaces or redeem_code, and an agent would not know what a 'web verdict' is.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool, what prerequisites exist, or when to prefer alternatives. The description is silent on use cases, exclusions, or dependencies on other tools such as list_surfaces.

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