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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds useful behavioral context: no side effects on watched state, no check triggering, mobile-first ordering, and the handoff of latestCompletedAuditId to get_audit_report.

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 dense sentences with the primary purpose front-loaded and no filler; the forward reference to get_audit_report is placed last where it belongs. 'Starts with mobile' is terse and slightly ambiguous about whether it describes ordering or a default filter, which costs a point.

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, the description need not explain return values, and annotations cover the safety profile; the remaining input semantics live in the schema. The description is essentially complete for a simple paginated read, with only the ambiguous 'Starts with mobile' phrase left unresolved.

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 limit, offset and siteId are fully documented in the schema and the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level meaning (no note on paging interaction or siteId format), and its mention of latestCompletedAuditId refers to an output field rather than an input, which does not compensate.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('see its watched pages') and enumerates the returned data (automatic-check state, per-site cadence, latest page-report IDs), so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It implicitly distinguishes itself from list_sites by scoping to watched pages within one site, but never explicitly contrasts with sibling tools, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

It states a clear precondition ('Call after choosing a site') and two exclusions ('does not start checks or change what is watched'), which is real when/when-not guidance. It also routes the agent forward to get_audit_report, though it does not name an alternative list tool for the case where the agent wants unwatched pages or site-level data.

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