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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description's 'nothing is ordered' is a mild restatement rather than new information. Its real added value is enumerating the returned content (price, delivery time, limits, ordering path), which matters because there is no output schema. It does not say whether this data is static documentation or fetched live, which is the one remaining behavioral gap.

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?

A single dense sentence with the scope front-loaded and the read-only constraint placed last for emphasis; every clause maps to actual deliverable content. The nested parenthetical is slightly heavy but carries real substance rather than filler.

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 zero-parameter informational tool with no output schema, the description covers what an agent needs: what is audited, what is delivered, and what commercial details come back. It falls just short of complete because it never states the relationship to prepare_website_audit_order or clarifies whether the offer details are static or retrieved live.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; the description correctly says nothing about inputs, which is appropriate given the empty object schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Describe Pasportoo's paid audit of a public website,' and then enumerates exactly what that description contains (coverage areas, price, delivery time, limits, ordering). The closing 'Read-only; nothing is ordered' implicitly separates it from the sibling prepare_website_audit_order, so an agent can tell these apart without opening either schema.

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 'Read-only; nothing is ordered' plus the mention of 'how the owner orders it' establishes this as the pre-purchase informational step before prepare_website_audit_order. However, it never explicitly names the sibling or states the when-to-use condition ('call this before preparing an order' / 'when the user asks about pricing or coverage'), leaving the routing to inference.

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