Run a website scan

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

Annotations only declare the safety profile (readOnly=false, idempotent=false, openWorld=true); the description adds the substantive traits an agent needs — monetary/quota cost per call, free-tier limit of three per month, multi-minute latency, and asynchronous return of a scan id. This is disclosure well beyond what the annotations provide.

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?

Three short paragraphs, front-loaded with the core action, then the critical cost warning, then the async-handoff instruction. Every sentence carries distinct operational value with 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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by explaining that a still-running scan returns a scan id to be passed to get_scan_report. Combined with the quota and latency warnings, an agent has everything needed to invoke this correctly on the first attempt.

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%, so url, label, and categories are already documented in the schema, including the pointer to list_categories. The description adds no parameter-level syntax or format 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 and resource ('Submit a URL to SyteCheck') and enumerates the ten quality dimensions the scan covers, so an agent knows exactly what comes back. The scope is clearly distinct from siblings like get_scan_report or list_scans.

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?

Explicitly routes to get_account_usage to check quota, instructs confirming repeat scans with the user, and names get_scan_report as the alternative when the scan is still running. It states both when to use the tool and when not to re-invoke it.

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