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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), it discloses the 10-stage pipeline, SSE streaming, approximate 90-second completion time, returned URLs (audit_id, stream_url, download_url), the daily free quota, and optional pass-based authentication. This is rich behavioral context that annotations alone do not convey.

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?

Long but efficiently packed with main purpose, returns, stage list, timing, quota, and usage gates. There is slight redundancy between 'one completed audit/day' and 'No payment or signup required for the daily audit,' but every sentence otherwise earns its place.

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 complex, multi-stage audit producing asynchronous output, it specifies all call-relevant details: returned identifiers and URLs, streaming behavior, completion time, rate limits, and when to avoid calling. The output schema exists, so return-value details need not be repeated in the description.

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?

The input schema already documents both parameters at 100% coverage, including URL format and the email/pass relationship. The description reinforces pricing context and the no-signup free tier, but the marginal additional meaning is modest, so the baseline 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?

Explicitly states it runs a 10-stage ghost audit on any website and lists the exact categories of findings (SEO gaps, AI discoverability, conversion leaks, etc.). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like ghost_audit_report and ghost_audit_status by framing it as the full audit runner.

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?

Provides explicit 'When to use' and 'When not to use' sections, plus rate-limit and auth context (free daily audit vs. Zambo Pass). However, it does not name specific sibling alternatives such as ghost_audit_report or ghost_audit_status as the safer read-only route, leaving some inference to the agent.

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