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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds genuinely new behavior: the crawl is asynchronous, it returns immediately rather than with data, and results surface through get_site_overview. It hints at audit replacement with 'refreshes the audit' but never states what prior audit data is lost, which is the one gap left given destructiveHint=true.

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, each earning its place: the first defines the action, the second the async return contract and the follow-up tool. The most important fact (returns immediately) is not buried.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description correctly covers the return contract by saying it returns immediately and redirecting to get_site_overview. What is missing is the destructive side: with destructiveHint=true, an agent would benefit from knowing the existing audit is overwritten and whether a crawl already in flight matters.

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?

Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%: the schema already explains the domain format and the optional-when-single-site rule. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the 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: starts a background crawl of the site sitemap and refreshes the audit. It is clearly separable from siblings like get_site_overview (which it names) and get_url_audit, so an agent can pick it without opening any 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?

Gives clear context for the call: it kicks off work and returns immediately, then results are read via get_site_overview. There are no explicit exclusions or comparison to alternatives such as get_url_audit, so it falls just short of a 5.

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