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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing caching behavior (24h cache), return contents (score, percentage, band, URL, failing checks), and the scope (brand's own store, not RRG). It also implies read-only behavior via 'fetch the cached,' but could still mention authentication or side effects if any.

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 concise and well-structured, starting with a marketing context tag, then the core action, return data, usage, and caching. Every sentence contributes information, with no padding or redundancy.

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?

For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description fully covers what the tool does, what it returns, how to invoke it with each parameter, and its caching behavior. It is self-contained and leaves no major gaps.

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%, but the description adds value by explaining the distinction between brand_slug (auto-resolves real store domain) and url (explicit override), and notes that one is required. This goes beyond the schema's field descriptions, earning a 4.

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 clearly states the tool runs or fetches an Agent Readiness Report for a brand's own store website, with a specific verb and resource. It explicitly distinguishes this from the RRG page and ties the purpose to a marketing use case, making it distinct from sibling tools like get_brand.

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 description states 'Use this to personalise partner outreach' and explains when to pass brand_slug versus url. It gives clear context for when to use the tool, but does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when not to use it, so it falls 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.