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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose key traits: public data only, no site changes, and a payment-challenge/credential flow bound to an HTTP GET rather than mcp://, plus retry semantics for authorized arguments. Gaps remain around actual auth prerequisites and rate limits, and the payment sentence is dense, but this is well beyond a bare description.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and the sibling routing in the second sentence; no filler sentences. The closing payment/retry sentences are necessary auth context but are jargon-heavy and slightly harder to parse than the rest.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must convey returns — it does so by listing the evidence categories. Safety (no site changes), data scope (public only), and the payment/auth channel are all covered, leaving only partial gaps on failure modes and credential requirements.

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?

Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents `domain` including the wallet_enrich fork. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, which matches the baseline 3 when structured data does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb (inspect) and resource (public company domain) and enumerates the evidence categories returned: identity, technology, social, contact, DNS, email-infrastructure, AI-readiness. It explicitly distinguishes itself from schemaforge, deep_audit, and (via the schema) wallet_enrich, so an agent can route correctly without opening other schemas.

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?

Gives explicit alternative selection conditions: use `schemaforge` for a paste-ready JSON-LD template and remediation diff, and `deep_audit` when both outputs are required together. This is a clean when/when-not/alternative statement rather than implied context.

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