Score AI readiness

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

Annotations already mark this read-only, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive, but the description adds material context beyond them: it fetches the URL and probes the origin via HEAD/GET, needs no browser, and caches results ~24h server-side. It also enumerates the ten artifact probes performed, telling the agent exactly what side effects and network behavior to expect.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose in the first clause, and each subsequent sentence carries distinct payload (exclusions, execution model, return shape, caching). The enumeration of all ten probed artifacts is slightly list-heavy but is genuinely informative rather than 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 present, the description compensates by spelling out the return JSON shape (ok, url, score, grade, pass/warn/fail counts, checks[]), plus execution model, caching behavior, and exclusion routing. Nothing an agent needs to call or interpret this tool is missing.

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% and the single url parameter's default is already documented in the schema, so the description adds no new syntactic or semantic detail about the argument. Baseline 3 applies when the schema fully carries parameter meaning.

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+resource (score a URL for design-system AI readiness) and scopes it precisely as the '6th maturity axis'. It explicitly names the sibling tools it is not (designesy_score, designesy_drift_score), so an agent can route without opening any schema.

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?

Gives both the positive trigger ('verify whether a design system is the default context AI tools build from') and explicit exclusions with named alternatives ('for full design-contract scoring, use designesy_score; for AI-drift detection, use designesy_drift_score'). This is exactly the when/when-not/alternatives pattern.

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