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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld=false/idempotent, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: cursor-based pagination via next_cursor and a mandatory attribution obligation (Source: Aleva, CC BY 4.0) that an agent must surface to users. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Purpose, pagination, then field glossary, then attribution — a sensible front-loaded order with no filler sentences. The field list is long but each entry carries new information since no output schema exists.

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 enumerated record fields (month, tld, domains, reachable, has_robots, ...) are exactly the compensation needed, and pagination plus licensing are both disclosed. Remaining gap is guidance on how this dataset relates to the other web_* tools, which the agent must 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3 — the schema already documents tld, limit, month, month_gte/lte, and cursor. The description adds one useful mapping by clarifying that the cursor parameter is fed from the previous result's next_cursor, but otherwise restates field meanings rather than parameter behavior.

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 resource (AI/crawler stance of Swedish websites) with a clear temporal granularity (per month). The enumerated fields — has_robots, ai_train_no, mentions_mcp, mentions_llms — let an agent infer this is distinct from siblings like web_llms or web_mcp_registry, but no sibling is named or explicitly contrasted.

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 how to paginate ('pass next_cursor to get the next page') but never says when to choose this tool over the many neighboring web_* tools, nor what data it excludes. Operational mechanics are covered; selection guidance is absent.

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