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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden well: it declares 'Reads only', notes the result is paged, explains the status vocabulary (ready, proposed, keep_original, rejected), and warns that mutations happen elsewhere and ask the person first. It does not mention permissions, auth, or behavior on non-ready entries, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Front-loads the return shape, then the actionable constraint, then the alternative tools. Dense but every sentence carries information; the field list is long but substitutes for the absent output schema.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by enumerating returned fields and status values, plus where the actual files live. Paging is mentioned but without total-count or termination guidance, a minor gap for a 3-param read tool.

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 67% and the schema already documents scan_id's source and limit's default. The description only adds 'Paged', which implies the meaning of limit/offset but gives no bounds, default, or iteration guidance beyond what the schema states.

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?

Opens with a precise framing ('What replaces what: one entry per original asset') and enumerates the exact fields returned, so the agent knows this is the per-asset replacement map for a scan. That is clearly distinguishable from siblings like list_website_assets (inventory) and get_website_scan (scan metadata).

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 routes the agent: act only on `ready` entries, get the ZIP address via get_website_scan, and use the local server's load_replacement_package/preview_replacements/apply_replacements to actually change files. It names alternatives and the condition that selects them, which is exactly the when/when-not guidance needed.

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