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

Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds valuable context: the tool costs $0.001 per call (paid via x402), and it verifies image loads and raster format. There is no contradiction with annotations.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core functionality, and efficient. Every sentence adds value: the first details what the tool does, the second specifies use cases and pricing.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema (not shown but indicated as present), the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the essential behavioral and contextual aspects for a single-parameter tool, making it complete for agent use.

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?

There is only one parameter (url), and the schema includes a description ('Public URL of the page to check'). The tool description adds no additional parameter details beyond what the schema provides. Since schema coverage is 100%, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 specifies the tool checks OpenGraph and Twitter meta tags, verifies og:image loading and format, and returns a verdict. It explicitly targets publishing and SEO agents, and the tool name 'get_og_check' distinctively sets it apart from sibling SEO tools like 'get_seo_head_check' or 'get_seo_metadata'.

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 mentions the tool is 'for publishing and SEO agents shipping pages that get shared', providing a clear use case. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context of siblings makes the differentiation obvious.

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