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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that by enumerating the return content (GEO, Multimodal readiness, Agent-Ready infrastructure, 6-dimension Marketing Health, prioritized findings) – meaningful disclosure given there is no output schema.

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 sentences, both earning their place: the first front-loads purpose, the second enumerates outputs. No filler, no repetition of the name, and the size is proportionate to a single-purpose scan tool.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully summarizes the return shape, and annotations cover the safety profile, so an agent has enough to invoke correctly. The missing piece is usage context – when this is preferred over refresh_scan or compare_scan – which is not addressed anywhere.

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?

All three parameters have full schema descriptions (100% coverage), so the schema carries the semantics. The description adds no information about url, industry, or max_pages behavior, which is the expected baseline when the schema is self-sufficient.

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 opening sentence gives a specific verb and resource ("Scan any website") plus the domain of analysis (AI visibility and marketing health), so an agent knows exactly what it does. However, it does not differentiate itself from siblings like refresh_scan or compare_scan, leaving the agent to infer the boundary from naming alone.

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 says "any website," which is broad but gives no when-to-use conditions, no prerequisites (auth, rate limits, scan duration), and never mentions the alternatives. With refresh_scan and compare_scan as siblings, the absence of routing guidance is a real gap.

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