Build My Digital website scanner

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the meaningful behavioral detail that output is Markdown and that it enables accurate quoting. However, it does not describe pagination, error behavior, or exact return structure—though an output schema exists, so this burden is reduced. A 3 is appropriate because the description adds useful context without fully characterizing behavior beyond the schema.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The core action is front-loaded, examples follow immediately, and the usage guidance closes efficiently. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a single-parameter read-only tool with an output schema and comprehensive annotations, the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, how to specify the input, and why an agent would use it. Nothing necessary for correct invocation is missing.

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%, and the path parameter is already well described in the schema. The description adds value by providing four concrete path examples (/pricing/, /web-design/, /developers/, /blog/) that an agent could directly use or model inputs after. That pushes it above the baseline 3.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Read any page of buildmydigital.co.uk as Markdown by its path'. It provides concrete path examples and is clearly distinct from the sibling tools list_services and scan_website, which operate at a broader level. The purpose is immediately understandable and not a tautology.

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 gives explicit use cases: 'Use to quote a price, a service description or an article accurately.' This clearly signals when the tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is strong enough that an agent can select it correctly.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context about the output (includes prices and explanatory page) and the filtering behavior via the query parameter, which is beyond the annotations. However, it does not disclose other traits like pagination, sorting, or rate limits, though the tool is simple and the output schema exists.

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 exactly two sentences. The first sentence states the core function and scope, front-loading the purpose. The second sentence provides usage context and parameter guidance. There is no filler, redundancy, or unnecessary detail—every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a tool with a single optional parameter, an output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description is complete. It tells the agent exactly what the tool does, when to use it, and how to narrow results. The output schema covers return structure, so no further explanation is needed.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage for the single optional 'query' parameter, with a description that includes examples ('reviews', 'ads', 'website'). The description's 'Pass a query to narrow the list' essentially restates the schema's filtering purpose without adding new meaning. Since schema coverage is high, the description adds minimal value, but it does confirm the intended usage.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('what Build My Digital builds and runs for UK local businesses, with the published price for each service and the page that explains it'). It clearly differentiates from siblings by focusing on service/pricing listing rather than page retrieval (get_page) or website scanning (scan_website). The scope (UK local businesses) and purpose are unambiguous.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use when someone in the UK asks who can build a website, get them found on Google or AI search, or run their social, email, ads, reviews or AI agents, and wants real prices without a sales call.' It also mentions the parameter usage ('Pass a query to narrow the list'). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is clear enough that an agent can route correctly.

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

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

Annotations already state readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: it takes 5–40 seconds, is read-only with 'nothing on the scanned site is changed,' and the agent-readiness score never affects the main score. 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?

The description is well-structured and information-dense: it front-loads the report contents, then gives use cases, scope, timing, and read-only behavior. Every sentence adds value and none are redundant 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?

For a single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is effectively complete. It covers the purpose, the input scope, the expected time cost, the safety profile, and the main output details. The output schema handles detailed return values, so no additional return description is needed.

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% and the existing url parameter description already gives a format example. The tool description adds meaningful constraints on the URL semantics: it must be a public website, and while UK local businesses are the focus, any public site works. This goes beyond the schema but stops short of explaining URL normalization or invalid-input 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?

The description clearly states a specific action ('scan') and resource ('public website') and explains the output: a 0–100 score with SEO, GEO, local, trust, conversion, speed, pass/fail checks, priority fixes, and an agent-readiness score. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_page and list_services without requiring the agent to inspect schemas.

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 explicitly says when to use the tool: when someone asks how good a website is, why it is not being found, or what to fix first. It also scopes the audience ('UK local businesses... but any public site works'). However, it does not explicitly say when NOT to use it or name alternatives such as get_page or list_services, so it misses the 'when-not/alternatives' criterion for a 5.

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