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

The description goes beyond the annotations by disclosing important side effects: 'This starts a live scan and creates a lead for the Kashif team, who follow up with the full written report by email.' It also explains the audit components in detail, giving the agent a clear picture of what happens during execution. The readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true are consistent with this live-scan/lead-creation behavior, and no contradictions exist.

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 efficient, with the main purpose and output stated in the first sentence. It includes a structured list of audit areas and a clear trigger phrase. While slightly longer than the minimal two-sentence example, each sentence earns its place, and the structure is well-organized for scanning.

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 that an output schema exists (so return values are documented), the description is complete. It covers the tool's purpose, process, side effects, parameter roles, and usage triggers. The audit areas and the lead-generation behavior are fully explained, leaving no major gaps for an agent to infer.

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% for all four parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that 'Give it a website (and an email to send the full report to)' maps directly to the required url and email parameters, and it clarifies the email's role in lead delivery. It doesn't elaborate on the optional name and language parameters, but those are adequately described in the schema and are optional, so the description supplements rather than replaces schema info.

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 ('Score') and a concrete resource ('a business's online presence'), stating it produces a 0-100 score and names the top issues. This clearly distinguishes the tool's function and is not a mere tautology. The scope is explicit: auditing online presence including search visibility, AI readiness, mobile speed, trust, and contact options.

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 an explicit usage directive: 'Use it whenever someone asks to audit, check, review, grade or improve a company's website or online presence.' This is clear context for when to invoke the tool. However, it doesn't mention when not to use it or name alternatives, though no sibling tools exist, so the lack of exclusions is acceptable but not fully complete.

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