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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the agent knows the tool is safe and idempotent. The description adds valuable behavioral details: the rate limit (5 req/min), timeout (30s), and the specific analysis areas (SSL, DNS, etc.). This goes beyond what annotations offer, though it does not describe error handling or edge cases.

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 extremely concise: two sentences covering purpose, analysis scope, output, and constraints. Every sentence adds value, and the most critical information (what the tool does) is front-loaded. No redundant or unnecessary text.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (multiple analysis areas), the presence of detailed annotations, 100% parameter schema coverage, and an output schema, the description is complete. It covers the core function, key inputs, behavioral constraints, and return value without needing to enumerate all possible outputs or error states.

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?

All three parameters are described in the input schema (100% coverage), so the schema already provides meaning for each parameter. The description reiterates the domain focus but does not add new semantics beyond the schema. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description does not elevate it further.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Run comprehensive AI-readiness + digital risk audit on any domain.' It specifies the verb (run audit), the resource (domain), and the analysis areas (SSL, DNS, structured data, LLM visibility). It also mentions the return value (risk score 0-100), making it distinct from sibling tools like entity_lookup or get_competitors.

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 implicitly tells the agent to use this tool when a risk audit is needed, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or provide when-not-to-use guidance. There is no mention of alternatives or exclusion criteria, leaving the agent to infer the use case from the tool's name and description alone.

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