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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, openWorld, non-destructive), the description discloses important behavioral traits: results may be only an aggregate summary, per-check evidence may or may not be included, and absent checks must not be reported as proof. It also warns this is not a ranking guarantee or security/legal/crawler-access certification. This adds substantive context not covered by annotations, though it does not mention rate limits or latency.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the purpose, then moves to output variability and evidential caveats. Every sentence carries useful information, though the caveat block is slightly dense and could be tightened without losing meaning.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be fully explained, and annotations already cover the safety profile. The description fills the remaining behavioral gaps (output variability, evidence handling, certification caveats) well, with the only notable omission being parameter-level URL guidance.

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?

With one required parameter and 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It says 'one public website,' which weakly implies the URL target, but it gives no format guidance (http/https), no statement about reachability, and no syntax details. The parameter remains largely undocumented.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Audit one public website for SEO, schema, and AI discoverability.' It states scope ('one public website') and the exact domains checked, so an agent can distinguish it from the unrelated sibling tools without opening the schema.

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?

The scope is implied by 'Audit one public website,' but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no alternatives named, and no prerequisites (e.g., whether the site must be reachable). The caveats at the end are limitations, not usage routing, so guidance remains implied rather than explicit.

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