Run a website scan

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

Annotations only indicate that the tool is not read-only and not idempotent. The description adds crucial behavioral details: each scan consumes a monthly quota and incurs real cost, free accounts have three scans per month, scans take a few minutes, and the tool may return a scan id for an in-progress scan. This goes well beyond the annotations and is essential for correct agent behavior.

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?

Although the description is long, every sentence serves a purpose: the core action, the ten dimensions, the quota warning, the confirmation guidance, and the async fallback. It is front-loaded with the action and the most critical limitation (cost), and the structure flows logically from invocation to follow-up. There is no irrelevant 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 tool that creates a scan (a side effect with cost) and has no output schema, the description covers all critical context: what it does, what it costs, how long it takes, how to handle an async result by passing the scan id to get_scan_report, and how to avoid wasteful duplicates. Everything an agent needs to call it correctly and responsibly is present.

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 already describes all three parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds little extra meaning: it mentions that categories are optional, that omitting them uses the plan's default, and that list_categories can be used to see available categories—but these are largely restatements of the schema descriptions. No new semantic nuance is provided that isn't already in the schema.

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 opens with a concrete verb and resource: 'Submit a URL to SyteCheck and wait for the report.' It enumerates the ten dimensions scanned, which are specific and informative. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_scan_report, which retrieves an existing report, and list_scans, which lists previous 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?

The description gives explicit when-to-use guidance: it instructs the agent to check get_account_usage when quota is uncertain, and to confirm with the user before re-scanning the same URL. It also tells the agent to use get_scan_report if the scan is still running, rather than re-scanning. This directly points to alternatives and defines the conditions that trigger them.

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