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

Description reveals the tool modifies state by appending 'mark_missing' or upgrading to 'Integrated', which is consistent with annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). However, it does not detail side effects, permissions, or reversibility.

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 sentence covering the main action and outcomes, with no wasted words. It could be slightly restructured for clarity but is effectively concise.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description lacks information about return values or side effects beyond the stated actions. It is adequate for a simple scanner but incomplete for an agent to fully anticipate consequences.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates by implying the url parameter points to a surface to scan, but it does not explicitly describe the parameter's purpose or format.

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 clearly states a specific verb (scan) and resource (visibility of SaSame mark on README/site/agent-card/.well-known), and distinguishes from siblings like usage_mark_issue or usage_mark_verify by focusing on visibility scanning.

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 implies usage for checking mark visibility on public surfaces but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor mentions alternative tools for issuing or verifying marks.

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