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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it runs parallel checks, returns a scored report with actionable findings, and mentions the cost ($0.50), which is useful behavioral context. Could add more about failure modes or timeouts, but it's a solid disclosure.

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 paragraph, but it's information-dense and well-structured, listing checks clearly. It's slightly long but every sentence adds value. Adding line breaks could improve readability, but it's still concise.

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 moderate complexity (multiple checks) and the simple, fully covered schema, the description provides complete context: what it does, what it returns, and even pricing. No output schema exists, but the description covers the return format. It's comprehensive enough.

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 schema already describes the URL parameter with an example, so coverage is 100%. The description doesn't add much parameter semantics beyond that, but it's redundant given the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Runs') and a clear resource ('Website security and SEO audit'), and explicitly lists the five distinct checks performed. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'email_audit' and 'web_scrape'.

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 when to use it: for comprehensive security and SEO audits. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or compare with alternatives, but the detailed scope makes the use case evident. Slight deduction for lacking explicit exclusions.

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