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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context by naming the exact paths probed and that there is no cost, but says nothing about what happens on a 404/timeout or what the result contains.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and target, followed by a two-word cost/safety note. Nothing is wasted and nothing important is 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?

For a simple one-parameter probe with no output schema, the definition is adequate but incomplete: it doesn't indicate what a result looks like (found/not found, discovered URL, spec validity) or that a negative result is a normal outcome, which matters when interpreting a check tool.

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 single 'url' parameter ('Domain or https URL'), so the schema carries the semantics. The description adds no format nuances beyond that (e.g., how bare domains are normalized to https).

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 ('Check') and a precisely scoped resource (the OpenAPI discovery endpoints /openapi.json and /.well-known/openapi.json on a public website). The phrase 'one agent-readiness item' implicitly separates it from the aggregate sibling bursia_agent_readiness and the other bursia_check_* probes, but never names them.

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?

Usage context is implied: it checks a single agent-readiness item, and 'Read-only, free' signals a cheap safe probe. However, it never says when to prefer this over bursia_agent_readiness (the aggregate) or the other check_* tools, nor any exclusions.

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