AI Website Check

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety baseline is covered. The description adds genuinely new context beyond that: it never submits forms, follows robots.txt, AI findings require a server-verified verbatim quote, and the run takes 5-60 seconds. Cost and the ANTHROPIC_API_KEY requirement are surfaced on the use_ai parameter, so the description itself stops short of a 5.

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 tightly packed sentences: purpose first, then the trust/verification model, then runtime. No filler, and the most decision-relevant facts are front-loaded.

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 carries return-value burden; it partially discharges this by naming the checklist dimensions a report covers. The exact report shape and how findings are grouped are left implicit, which is the only notable gap for a single-purpose auditing tool.

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 the schema already documents url, use_ai (with cost/key note and default) and language (with enum and default). The description adds no additional syntax or format detail about these parameters; baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('walks through a small-business website the way a customer would') and enumerates the exact dimensions checked (Google listing, phone view, services, price, hours, calling, address, trust, inquiry). An agent knows precisely what this tool produces and the perspective it takes, with no siblings to confuse it with.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the tool audits a small-business site, and the description gives runtime expectations (5-60 seconds) and read-only constraints. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or prerequisite framing (e.g. when a plain fetch would suffice), and no siblings exist to route against, so guidance remains at the implied level.

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