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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive), so the description's added value is corpus and freshness semantics: it reads pages from the latest readiness scan, caps at 100, refreshes after each scan, and that 'index says when the site was last read'. Those are real behavioral facts an agent cannot derive from annotations.

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?

Four compact sentences, front-loaded with what is returned before the usage advice and freshness note. Dense but no filler; the phrase 'Cleotic reads the pages its latest site readiness scan found' is slightly indirect but carries necessary information.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be spelled out, and the corpus scope, freshness signal and usage guidance are covered. Pagination behavior is left entirely to the schema's cursor/limit descriptions, which is acceptable though it means the description is silent on multi-page retrieval.

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 brand, query, limit and cursor are already documented in the schema; baseline is 3. The description echoes the 100-row cap but adds no syntax, format or query-language detail beyond what the schema provides.

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: passages from 'the brand's own website' matching a query 'by words and meaning', with page provenance. The phrase 'the brand's own website' cleanly separates it from siblings search_docs and search_facts without opening their 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 context: 'Use it to see what the site already says before asking the user, and quote it as the site's wording.' That is a clear trigger and even prescribes how to reuse the result. It stops short of naming when to prefer search_docs or list_pages instead.

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