check_form_platform

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the return contents (platform, plain-English outreach note, visible field count), the honeypot-exclusion behavior, and the empirical caveat that Wix forms produce no traffic on automated submits. It omits anything about auth, rate limits, or behavior when a site is unreachable beyond listing 'unknown'.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the Wix/outreach material is genuinely decision-relevant rather than filler. The platform enumeration and the multi-clause Wix explanation make it slightly longer than needed, and the trailing quoted Args block is a formatting artifact.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, yet the description redundantly but harmlessly restates them. For a single-input detection tool with no annotations, the remaining gap is error/edge behavior (unreachable or non-form sites) beyond the 'unknown' fallback.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it defines url as the page to check and gives two concrete formats (bare domain and domain with /contact path). It doesn't specify scheme requirements, redirect handling, or whether non-HTML resources are accepted.

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 names a specific verb+resource ('Detect which form/website platform a site runs') and enumerates the detectable platforms, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does. It does not, however, explicitly position itself against siblings like audit_website or run_full_audit, so sibling differentiation remains implicit.

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?

It provides clear decision context: the detected platform predicts whether automated form outreach will work, with a concrete rule ('Wix forms fire no network traffic — use email or social there instead'). It stops short of naming an alternative sibling tool or stating when a call is unnecessary, so it falls just short of explicit when/when-not routing.

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