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

Annotations only supply readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true; the description goes further by explaining what the response contains (descriptions, inputs, reliability), that the site may block agents, and that passing `previous` causes a side-effect report recorded like submit_trace — which explains why this read-shaped call is not marked read-only. It also flags the registry content as untrusted prompt-injection surface, a safety trait no annotation conveys.

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 imperative "Check before browsing" front-loads the trigger, and each subsequent sentence carries a distinct instruction (call, pick, follow up, block-handling, prior-outcome reporting, untrusted content). It is slightly dense and runs long, but no sentence is padding.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so — it names the fields returned and the usable/blocked signal. Combined with the workflow handoff to get_playbook and the reporting hook, an agent has everything needed to call it 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning: `site` is the site you are about to browse, and `previous` carries the outcome of an unreported task and is recorded like submit_trace, which the schema only gestures at. It stops short of explaining what a report_token is or when a report is expected to be sent, leaving a small gap.

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 and resource — it returns the tasks with verified playbooks for a given site, plus whether automated agents may use that site. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling `get_playbook`, which handles the follow-up step, and from `get_site_map`.

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?

Explicitly says when to call it ("before opening a website for a task"), what to do next ("then call get_playbook with it"), and what not to do (if the site blocks agents, don't attempt the task and give the user a link instead). Alternative routing is fully spelled out.

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