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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description only needs to add non-safety behavioral context. It does this by stating that results are returned as categorized detections with confidence levels, giving an agent a clear expectation of the response shape. It does not discuss costs or rendering behavior, but the schema already covers credit differences for render modes.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the core action, gives a representative category list, and closes with the expected output format. There is no filler, repetition of the tool name, or restatement of schema details.

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 100% schema coverage, strong safety annotations, and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the remaining need: what domain the tool operates on and what kind of result it produces. Nothing essential for selecting or invoking the tool is missing.

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 all parameters are fully documented with names, types, enums, defaults, and credit implications. The description adds no parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so 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?

The description opens with a specific verb-resource pair — 'Detect the technology stack of a website' — and enumerates concrete detection categories such as CMS, frameworks, JavaScript libraries, analytics, CDN, hosting, fonts, and security tools. This makes it immediately distinguishable from siblings like tooltrace_metadata or tooltrace_links without needing to inspect their schemas.

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 usage context is implied: an agent should call this when it needs to identify a site's underlying technologies. However, the description never states when not to use it, names sibling alternatives, or addresses overlap with tooltrace_extract or tooltrace_metadata, so the guidance is only implicit.

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