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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive and open-world access, so the safety bar is low. The description goes further by disclosing the return shape (0-100 score, grade, per-problem concrete fixes, impact-ranked fixes, report link) and implies an outbound fetch of the live site. It does not mention latency or any rate/retrieval limits, so a 4 rather than 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?

The check enumeration is long but dense and front-loaded on the core action, with the output summary and usage triggers following. Every clause names a concrete signal, though the crawler-name list could be trimmed without losing meaning.

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, the description carries the return-value burden and does so fully: score, grade, issue list with fixes, ranked fixes, report link. Combined with the explicit checks and trigger phrases, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly for a single-parameter read-only 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?

One parameter at 100% schema description coverage ('Website domain, e.g. example.com'), so the schema already carries the meaning. The description adds no format detail (e.g. scheme, subdomain handling) beyond what the schema states, matching the baseline for fully-documented params.

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 (checks) and resource (AI search readiness of a business website) and enumerates exactly what is inspected: robots.txt rules for named AI crawlers, llms.txt, JS-free text, schema.org labels, sitemap, FAQ/pricing pages. There are no siblings to distinguish from, and the scope is unmistakable.

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?

Gives explicit trigger conditions in quoted user phrasings ('why doesn't ChatGPT recommend my business', 'is my site blocking AI', 'is my website ready for AI search / GEO / AEO'). An agent can match a user request to this tool without inference.

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