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

Annotations already mark this read-only and closed-world, and the description adds real context beyond them: nothing is ordered, charged or sent to the site, and authorisation plus payment happen on the linked page. It stops short of saying what happens on an invalid or unreachable URL.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and output, followed by the trigger and then the safety boundary. No filler sentences.

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 two-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned (a prefilled order link) and what does not happen. Slight gap around failure behaviour for invalid URLs, but nothing essential to invocation 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so both the url format and the goal enum meanings are already fully documented in the schema. The description only restates that the address must be public https, adding no syntax or constraint detail beyond that baseline.

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 pair: validate a public https address and return a prefilled order link for its owner. The output is concrete, and the negative clauses ('does not order, charge or contact the site') separate it from the adjacent offer/agent tools.

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 a clear trigger condition: use when the user wants their own website checked for bugs, security problems or UX issues. It does not name when to prefer get_website_audit_offer or list_pasportoo_agents, so the sibling routing is left to inference.

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