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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false. The description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: it is a write-scope operation requiring user consent, it returns a scan id, it has a per-project concurrency limit of one, and the plan's page budget constrains it.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the action and the consent caveat, followed by the follow-up workflow and the limits. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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 still tells the agent what comes back (a scan id) and how to consume it (polling cadence and downstream tools). For a two-parameter mutation tool, nothing an agent needs in order to invoke and follow up 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 description coverage is 100%, so both `scope` (website vs sitemap) and `project_id` are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds only indirect context via 'the plan's page budget applies,' which hints at cost but does not clarify parameter behavior beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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: 'Start a fresh Site Health scan of the project's site.' It is immediately distinguishable from siblings like get_scan_status (polling), list_scans (history), and get_site_health (results), which the description itself routes to.

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?

Explicit sequencing: call this, then poll get_scan_status every 10 seconds until completed, then call get_site_health / get_fix_plan. It also gives a precondition ('ask the user first') and a constraint ('one scan at a time per project'), so both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are covered.

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