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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description's primary job is to add context. The description does this by stating rate limits (5 req/min, 30s timeout) and the scope of analysis (SSL, DNS, etc.). However, it does not explicitly disclose what happens on failure (e.g., partial results or timeout), which would further enhance transparency.

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 one sentence with bullet-like clarity, covering purpose, components, output, and constraints without fluff. Every sentence earns its place, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

Despite having 3 parameters and an output schema (which may document return values), the description is complete for a tool with strong annotations. It explains the audit's components, output format, and rate limits. The combination of annotations and description covers safety (read-only, idempotent), usage (rate limits, domain specificity), and output (risk score range).

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds meaning by linking the domain parameter to the audit's purpose but does not clarify the optional parameters' impact on the audit (e.g., does sector_id change the risk weighting?). A higher score would require explicit parameter behavior details.

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 runs an AI-readiness and digital risk audit on a specified domain, listing the components analyzed (SSL, DNS, structured data, LLM visibility) and the output (risk score 0-100). This explicit verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like entity_lookup or get_competitors, which have different purposes.

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 provides clear context that the tool is for auditing a domain, and the sibling tools list helps an agent understand alternatives. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool (e.g., for a single metric check or when rate limits are critical) or specify prerequisites like domain ownership verification.

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