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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false; the description adds concrete meaning to those hints by specifying GET-only traffic, no cart mutation, no login, no form submission, and that failures are reported as pass/warn/fail rather than thrown. It also notes the audit link alongside the findings.

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: the first front-loads the purpose and the checks, the second states the safety boundary and what is returned. Every clause conveys distinct, useful information with no repetition of the title or annotations.

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 the rich annotations, a fully described single parameter, and the presence of an output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: what is checked, what is not mutated, and the shape of the result (pass/warn/fail plus a link). Nothing material is missing.

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?

There is a single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage including format and max length. The description doesn't add syntax or format guidance beyond the schema's 'https://example.com' example, so the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 and resource ('Check a public WooCommerce store') and enumerates the exact checks performed (reachability, HTTPS validity, redirects, WooCommerce detection, /cart/ and /checkout/ loading, payment markers). An agent can tell precisely what this tool does and what it will report.

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 phrase 'from the outside' and the explicit exclusions ('never adds to cart, logs in or submits forms') define the boundary conditions for use. There are no sibling tools to disambiguate against, and no explicit 'do not use for X' statement, which keeps this just below a 5.

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