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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses pricing, the two-step payment flow, refusal of unknown domains free of charge, the report contents, and the fact that every figure cites its source table. This is thorough and leaves no major behavioral surprises.

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 dense but every sentence carries essential information—pricing, usage steps, report contents, and a caution. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and pricing, and while long, it remains organized and free of fluff.

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 (payment flow, coverage check, detailed report contents) and the absence of an output schema, the description is remarkably complete. An agent can correctly invoke the tool and understand what to expect without additional documentation.

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%, so both parameters are already documented. The description adds meaningful context: it explains the two-step payment flow for the payment parameter and gives an example for domain. This goes beyond the schema and enhances understanding.

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 produces a one-page report on a single indexed service with a verdict, and enumerates the specific data points (uptime, payment evidence, TLS, jobs, alternatives). This verb+resource phrasing distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_demand_report or get_trust_score without ambiguity.

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?

It gives explicit step-by-step usage: call without payment to get requirements, then call again with payment. It also advises checking coverage first at /covered/{domain}. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use it, so it falls short of full guidance.

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