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

With no annotations provided, the description correctly discloses the core side effect: 'Queueing is a database write rather than a fetch.' It also reveals reply behavior, naming already-fresh or never-measured domains, though exact rate limits and idempotency semantics are not fully specified.

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?

Three sentences pack the purpose, workflow, and operational distinction without filler. The first sentence front-loads the core action, while the later sentences add necessary context about the crawl_preflight loop and the allowance difference from scan_site.

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 one-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers when to call, what to submit, the side effect, and the response's role in convergence. It leaves numeric limits and idempotency guarantees implicit, but enough information exists for correct invocation.

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% with a clear field description, so the parameter itself is well documented. The tool description adds value by defining eligibility: only domains the census has not measured yet, specifically those flagged by crawl_preflight as unknown with measurable true.

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 states a specific verb and object: 'Queue domains the census has not measured yet.' It also explicitly ties the tool to crawl_preflight's 'unknown with measurable true' results, distinguishing it from retrieval-focused siblings like scan_site and site_report.

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 gives an explicit selection rule: anything crawl_preflight returns as unknown with measurable true is worth submitting, and it warns that fresh or never-measured domains appear in the reply so a caller can avoid resubmission. It also contrasts the database-write allowance with scan_site, helping an agent choose between them.

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