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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the inspection vectors (DOM/tracker checks, consent signals, headers), which is useful context beyond a bare name. However, it omits key behavioral facts: that auditing presumably loads the target page and fires third-party requests, whether it is non-destructive, how long a scan takes, and any auth or rate-limit constraints. Enough to know what happens, not enough to know the cost or side effects.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the enumerated check list. No filler, no restating of the name or title.

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 two-parameter tool this is close to adequate, but with no annotations and no output schema, the description should say something about what comes back (a findings report? a pass/fail summary per check?) and about the deep_scan default. An agent knows what the tool does but not what it gets back or what calling it costs.

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 the schema already explains both url and deep_scan; the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema — notably it never explains the trade-off of deep_scan (depth vs. speed/heaviness), which would have been a genuine value-add.

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 ('Performs multi-vector automated compliance auditing') on a specific resource ('target website URL') and enumerates the exact checks performed: cookie banner, Consent Mode v2, GTM tag firing, legal links, security headers. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings generate_documents and list_sites without opening any schema.

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 never states when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any preconditions (e.g., whether the site must first be registered via list_sites). There is no guidance on when-not-to-use, expected runtime, or how deep_scan=true (the default) changes the decision to call it.

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