scan_site

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden, and it does a solid job: it states it is free, requires no API key, enumerates the return scores, and mentions the breadth of checks. It does not explicitly state whether the scan only reads data, but the 'scan' framing plus no-auth emphasizes a low-impact, non-destructive operation.

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 description is dense but stays organized: scope first, then returned scores, then additional elements, then technical breadth and cost/auth. It is slightly redundant in repeating '0-100' and 'AI' multiple times, but no sentence is wasted.

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?

The description thoroughly covers return values and the free/no-key stance, and an output schema exists, so the return shape is further defined. It is incomplete on the input semantics, especially the pages parameter, and does not explain how this scan compares to audit_site, which limits full autonomous invocation confidence.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate, but it only implies a target site without discussing the URL parameter or the pages parameter at all. An agent gets no added meaning for the 'pages' control, which can change the result scope and cost/time.

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 identifies a specific action (scan a site) and names the exact outputs returned: AEO Score, GEO Score, Agent Readiness Score, and an AI Identity Card. It is distinguishable from compare_sites and fix_sites by the scan-and-report nature, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling audit_site.

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 phrase 'Quick AI visibility scan' and 'Free — no API key needed' imply a lightweight, low-friction initial use case. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this over audit_site, compare_sites, or fix_site, so the routing decision is left largely to inference.

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