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

Annotations cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds meaningful value beyond them: it discloses the output artifacts (Ed25519-signed audit proof and embeddable SVG badge) and the exact endpoints probed, which tells the agent this performs live network fetches against the target.

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?

Two dense sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and score range, followed by endpoints and outputs. Efficient with no filler; could be slightly tighter but earns its length.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, yet the description still hints at the signed proof and badge. For a single-param live-scan tool it covers purpose, inputs, endpoints, and outputs adequately; minor gap is lack of timing/rate/failure behavior for a live probe.

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?

Only one parameter with 100% schema coverage including an example format, so the schema does the work. The description confirms the input is 'any web domain' but adds no new syntax detail. 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?

States a specific verb (Run) and resource (Sovereign & MCP Readiness Audit) on a web domain, and enumerates the exact endpoints checked. Clearly distinguishable from every sibling, which are all mutation/creation tools.

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 explains what the tool does but offers no when-to-use vs when-not guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. With only one parameter and a distinct purpose this is less critical, but no explicit usage guidance is given.

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