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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, open-world), yet the description still adds real signal: results come from a bounded crawl sample, evidence is typed, missing fields are diagnosed, and source ownership/version/expiry/membership are validated at run time. The explicit incompleteness warning is exactly the kind of behavioral caveat an agent needs. It stops short of saying what happens on validation failure or how the sample is bounded.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by result shape, preconditions, and the caveat. No filler, though the ownership/version/expiry sentence is abstract enough that it borders on boilerplate.

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 no output schema, the description partly compensates by describing return content ('typed source evidence and missing-field diagnostics'). However, for a tool with two required parameters and an unexplained 'affected' notion, it leaves the agent without enough to construct a correct call or interpret results confidently.

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 0% across three parameters, so the description carries the full burden — and it mentions none of them. There is no explanation of task_id, resourceUrl, or the limit cap of 10, leaving required inputs and the result-size control entirely to bare schema types.

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?

It names a resource (pages affected by a resource) and narrows the scope to a bounded crawl sample, so the verb/resource pairing is inferable. But 'affected' is never defined (referencing pages? pages using a resource file?), and nothing distinguishes it from nearby siblings like nexscope_website_resource_status or nexscope_website_links. An agent cannot confidently pick this tool over those on description alone.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool, when not to, or which sibling to prefer. The only guidance is a negative caveat ('this sample does not describe every page'), which manages expectations but does not route selection.

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