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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: free/no API key, a hard daily rate limit with reset timezone, cache short-circuiting, dedupe of in-progress audits, and asynchronous background execution with a polling contract. These are exactly the traits an agent needs to avoid misusing the tool, and none are derivable from readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint/openWorldHint.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and return value, followed by constraints and the polling instruction. Every sentence carries information the agent needs; no 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?

No output schema exists, but the description compensates by naming the returned audit_id and the full async lifecycle via get_audit. Combined with fully documented parameters and rich operational constraints, an agent has everything needed to call and follow up correctly.

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% and both parameters (url, language with enum) are already documented, so the agent loses nothing by the description not restating them. The description adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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+resource ("Starts a free gizz.uz SEO audit of a web page") and names the return value (audit_id). It implicitly separates itself from the sibling get_audit by making start vs. poll explicit in the last sentence.

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?

Gives concrete context for when the limit applies (3/day per client address, resets 00:00 Tashkent), when the cache bypasses the limit (page audited in last 24 hours), and the required follow-up workflow (poll get_audit until status is "done"). No explicit when-not-to-use or named alternative beyond get_audit, so not a 5.

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