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

The description discloses the single fetch, 10s timeout, content-type and Contact requirements, and the full status vocabulary with semantics (ok, not_applicable, timeout, error). It adds substantial behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, and doesn't contradict them.

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 dense but well-structured: purpose first, then requirements, then return statuses. Every sentence contributes value, though it's slightly long due to the status vocabulary enumeration.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the purpose, prerequisites, return statuses, and how to interpret each status. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly 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 coverage is 100% and the domain parameter is already well described, including rejected inputs. The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond referencing 'domain' in context, so the baseline of 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 description states a specific verb (check), resource (security.txt at /.well-known/), and standard (RFC 9116), plus the returned fields. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling dossier_* tools by the specific file it targets, even though it doesn't name alternatives.

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 purpose implies when to use it (to verify security.txt presence), but it doesn't contrast with other dossier tools or state explicit when-not-to-use conditions. The 'requires non-HTML content type and Contact field' is more about behavioral conditions than selection guidance.

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