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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It adds useful scope boundaries (what is not scanned) but omits critical traits: whether the scan is asynchronous or synchronous, whether authentication is required, rate limits, and what the tool returns or initiates. This is a substantial gap for a start-scan operation.

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 two tightly written sentences with no filler, and the primary scope constraint is placed first. Every sentence 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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse for a tool that likely initiates a scan. It should explain that it starts a scan (and perhaps returns a scan ID for retrieval via vibe_doctor_get_scan), describe the requestId purpose, and mention any async behavior or rate limits. These omissions leave the agent with insufficient context to invoke the tool correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that the url parameter must be a public HTTPS URL and that only one URL is accepted, which is meaningful. However, it says nothing about the requestId parameter, leaving half of the required parameters undocumented in both schema and description.

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 names a specific verb (검사합니다, inspects/scans) and resource (공개 HTTPS URL 한 개, one public HTTPS URL), and states the scope (현재 무료 스캔 범위). It does not distinguish this tool from its siblings (vibe_doctor_get_scan, vibe_doctor_explain_finding), so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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 gives clear applicability constraints (public HTTPS, free scan scope) and exclusions (내부망·로그인·저장소, i.e. no internal networks, logins, or repositories), which implies when the tool can be used. However, it never names the alternative tools or says when to prefer this over vibe_doctor_get_scan or vibe_doctor_explain_finding.

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