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

The description adds useful behavior beyond the annotations: the scan takes about a minute, returns a score and issues, and includes masked evidence, fix steps, and fix prompts for critical issues. It also explains the passive nature of free scans. It does not describe failure modes or rate limits, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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 front-loaded with the scan's purpose and duration, then follows with output details and safety requirements. It is generally efficient, but the long consent/legal phrase is repeated from the schema, which adds some 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?

With no output schema, the description steps in to explain the return values: score, issues, masked evidence, fix steps, and fix prompts. It also covers duration, consent gating, and passive scope. For a two-parameter scan tool, an agent has enough information to invoke it correctly.

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 the url and consent parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description repeats the consent wording and implies the URL should be a live site, but adds no new parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. 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?

The description uses a specific verb and resource: it runs SniffPup's free passive scan of a live website and returns the score and issues found. It also distinguishes the operation from a generic scan by stating that it is free and passive. No siblings exist, but the action and outcome are unambiguous.

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?

It explicitly states the ownership/permission prerequisite and explains exactly when consent should be true: only after the user confirms the specific authorization and terms. It also names the restriction in negative form, telling the agent not to scan sites the user does not own or have permission to test.

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