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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the specific checks performed and the output format (verdict + notes). It does not mention network behavior, timeouts, or rate limits, but for a read-only audit tool the described checks are sufficiently transparent.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core action, followed by a focused checklist and return values. The 'door-to-door web designer' analogy adds character but is not strictly necessary; still, it helps set expectations without bloating the text.

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 a single parameter and no output schema, the description covers the input, the checks performed, and the output verdicts and notes. It does not explain edge cases like invalid URLs or protocol handling, but it provides enough for correct invocation in most expected scenarios.

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% for the only parameter ('url'), and the description does not add meaningful format details beyond what the schema already provides. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 uses a specific verb ('audit') with a clearly defined resource ('small-business website') and enumerates concrete checks (load, HTTPS, mobile viewport, page weight, dead/parked domain, social-only). It also names the exact verdict values returned, making it easy to distinguish from the unrelated siblings.

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 clearly frames when to use it: when auditing a small-business website's basic health and legitimacy. It does not explicitly exclude other use cases or mention sibling alternatives, but the scope and checklist are specific enough that an agent can infer appropriate usage.

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