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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does well by stating that the output is deterministic, contains placeholders requiring replacement, makes no site changes, and does not guarantee AI citations. This goes beyond basic read/write hints. A slight gap is not covering rate limits or authentication, but for an analysis tool this is sufficient.

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 three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: purpose and outputs, alternative guidance, and caveats. It is front-loaded with the main functionality and has no redundant or filler content.

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?

For a tool with no output schema and moderate complexity, the description gives a solid overview of expected outputs (template, diff, fixes) and key constraints (placeholders, no site changes). It does not describe the structure of the diff or fixes, but the core usage context is well covered.

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 each parameter. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides (e.g., the `site` fetchability and JS behavior are already in the schema). Therefore, 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 ('Analyze') and clearly identifies the resource ('public business site') and the outputs ('JSON-LD template', 'gap diff', 'ranked fixes'). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool `deep_audit` by noting when to prefer the alternative, making the purpose unmistakable.

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?

Explicitly provides an alternative tool ('Use `deep_audit` instead') and states the condition for switching (when company, technology, contact, and DNS/email evidence are needed). This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, which is rare and highly useful for an agent.

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