Business Site Audit

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond that by disclosing which resources are actually fetched (webpage, robots.txt, sitemap) and the character of the results (dated evidence, prioritized fixes, explicit unknown checks). It does not mention rate limits, auth, or failure behavior, so it is not exhaustive.

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, zero filler. The capability statement is front-loaded and the usage condition follows immediately, making it skimmable without losing required 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?

For a single-parameter read-only audit tool with a full output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: what is inspected, the scope limit, the nature of the returned evidence, and the triggering scenario. Output details need not be restated since an output schema exists.

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% and the schema already tells the agent the url may be a full HTTP/HTTPS URL or a bare domain name with length bounds. The description reinforces 'one public' (single-target, no batching) but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 names a specific verb (Inspect) and precise resources (one public business webpage, robots.txt, sitemap), and states the output artifacts (dated HTTP evidence, prioritized fixes, unknown checks). Scope is bounded to a single public site, so an agent knows exactly what the tool operates on. No siblings exist to differentiate from.

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 gives a clear triggering condition: 'Use when an owner asks what technical crawl or indexing problems their site has.' That is a concrete context, not an implied one. There are no sibling tools to route between, so no exclusions or alternatives are needed, which is why it stops just short of 5.

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