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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely non-derivable behavior: each gap reports the tool that fixes it, and complete=true only when no blocking gap exists, while suggestions (e.g. no animation on a fresh build) never block. It does not describe the shape of the returned list beyond that single flag, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and every clause carries real check information, but the body is a single semicolon-chained sentence packing a dozen items plus grading rules, which is hard to scan. It would be materially clearer as three short blocks: when to run, what is checked, how to read complete=true.

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?

With no output schema, 2 optional parameters and rich annotations, the description carries the needed burden: scope, triggering conditions, blocking versus non-blocking semantics, and the explicit non-coverage of click and form-submission testing. Only the returned structure (beyond the complete flag and per-gap fix hints) is left implicit, which is acceptable for a read-only audit 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 coverage is 100% and both parameters carry their own French descriptions ('Limiter aux pages corrigées', 'Manques listés par page'). The description's 'Pour toutes les pages' versus the site-level checks implies the default scope without pageIds, but it adds no format, default or limits for either parameter, so baseline 3 applies.

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 opening 'CONTRÔLE DE LIVRAISON d'un site créé ou cloné' gives a specific verb and resource, and the middle section enumerates exactly what is inspected (unwired forms, dead buttons, empty tablet/mobile views, missing theme, source-site links). It is clearly distinguishable from a generic page reader, though it never names sibling tools such as get_clone_review or control_website_clone, so the agent must infer the boundary itself.

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?

Timing guidance is explicit: run before declaring the site finished and after every round of fixes. It also states a boundary — it does not test clicks or real submissions, do that afterwards on the preview — which is real when-not guidance. What is missing is routing to alternatives when this tool is the wrong choice (e.g. how it relates to the clone review tools).

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