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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious operational context: a 5 req/min rate limit and a 30s timeout, which matter for a potentially slow audit call.

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?

Four compact sentences, each carrying distinct information: purpose, analysis scope, return value, and operational limits. The core purpose is front-loaded with zero filler.

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 an output schema present and annotations covering the safety profile, the description needs mainly to convey scope and operational constraints, which it does. Only minor gaps remain, such as failure behavior or whether a partial audit is possible.

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 name, domain, and sector_id are already documented in the schema with examples and a regex pattern. The description adds no parameter-level detail (e.g., how sector_id affects the audit), so 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 (AI-readiness + digital risk audit) with explicit scope ('on any domain') and enumerates the analyzed dimensions (SSL, DNS, structured data, LLM visibility). No sibling tool performs an audit, so the agent can distinguish it immediately.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of any alternative tool. 'On any domain' implies broad applicability but gives the agent no routing criteria against siblings like entity_lookup or get_full_dossier.

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