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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that the tool returns scores, findings, and recommendations, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as external API usage, rate limits, or authentication requirements beyond what annotations imply.

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 with no wasted words. The purpose is front-loaded and every sentence provides distinct value: first sentence states action and output categories, second sentence adds findings and recommendations.

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 no output schema, the description explains return values (scores, findings, recommendations) adequately. It covers key output dimensions. However, it does not mention the scanning scope (subpages via max_pages) or any limitations, and the '6-dimension Marketing Health' is left undefined.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema already provides (URL format, industry context, max pages). It focuses on outputs rather than parameter guidance.

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 scans websites for AI visibility and marketing health, listing specific score categories. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like compare_scan or get_score_breakdown, leaving some ambiguity about when this tool is preferred.

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 'Scan any website' but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like compare_scan or refresh_scan. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or context signals suggesting optimal use cases.

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