Audit a public website opportunity

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

The description discloses key behaviors: the audit is bounded and robots-aware, returns detailed results, and never submits forms. This adds value beyond annotations (which don't mention these specifics). However, it could further detail what 'bounded' means (e.g., limits on pages or depth).

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, no wasted words. The 'never submits forms' adds a key safety note efficiently. Front-loaded with the main action and return types.

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?

Despite an output schema existing, the description lacks essential input parameter details and does not clarify scope ('bounded') or prerequisites. For a tool with 6 parameters and no schema descriptions, more completeness 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameter purposes. It fails to mention any of the 6 parameters (url, depth, refresh, maxPages, serviceIds, candidateId), leaving the agent without guidance on how to invoke the tool.

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 it runs a bounded, robots-aware public website audit and lists specific return types (observations, signals, failures, score reasons). The verb 'audit' and resource 'public website opportunity' are specific, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like opportunity_discover.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or context such as needing an existing opportunity ID.

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