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

With annotations present, the description still adds meaningful context: exactly one live page fetch per check, no analysis performed, and no credit consumed — cost and side-effect information the annotations do not convey. It also names the return vocabulary. It stops short of describing rate limits or failure modes of the live fetch, keeping it out of 5 territory.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then the cost/behavioral caveat, then the routing advice and parameter rule. No filler and nothing repeated from the schema.

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?

Output schema covers the return shape and annotations cover the safety profile, so the description only needs to add the non-obvious bits — plan gating, zero-credit behavior, and the exactly-one-identifier rule — which it does. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly is missing.

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%, so per-parameter meaning is already documented. The description adds a genuine constraint the schema lacks: 'Pass exactly one of report_id, domain_id or site_analysis_id' — a mutual-exclusion rule not encoded as oneOf. It also clarifies finding_ids is optional.

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 (re-check findings after a fix) and immediately scopes it: one live page fetch, no analysis, no credit. The three possible verdicts (verified, still_failing, unverifiable) make the outcome concrete, so an agent can distinguish it from analyze_website at a glance.

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?

Explicitly names the alternative and the condition that selects this tool: 'Use this instead of re-running analyze_website.' It also adds a practical gating condition (included with Pro and Agency), which tells the agent when the call will even succeed.

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