Run Full Audit

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose one important trait: an authorization/defensive-use precondition. It says nothing about side effects, though — whether url triggers live network requests against the target, whether project_path reads local disk, how long a full pass takes, or whether anything is written. Those are real gaps for a tool an agent might point at an arbitrary host.

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 purpose is front-loaded well in sentence one, but the remaining three sentences say essentially the same thing three times ('use only on sites you own', 'defensive use only', 'only on ... you own or have explicit written authorization'). Two of those sentences are pure repetition, displacing space that parameter and scope guidance should occupy.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but for a broad 'full audit' tool the description never says what the audit covers or how it relates to the granular sibling checks, and it gives zero parameter guidance. Combined with the absence of annotations, an agent lacks enough to invoke this confidently on the first try.

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 0% and both parameters are nullable with default null, so the schema alone gives an agent no guidance. The description does not mention 'url' or 'project_path' at all, and critically does not say they are mutually exclusive alternatives or that at least one must be supplied — an agent could plausibly call it with neither.

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 gives a specific verb and resource tied to a named standard: 'Execute a full technical readiness audit against Sri Lanka PDPA No. 9 of 2022.' The word 'full' hints at a superset of the granular sibling checks (scan_privacy_policy, detect_cookie_consent, etc.), but it never states that relationship explicitly, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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?

There is a clear when-not-to-use constraint (unauthorised targets, non-defensive use), which is valuable. However, it never says when to prefer this over the narrower siblings — e.g. that it runs every check and is therefore slower/heavier than calling individual scanners — so the routing decision between full and targeted scans is unstated.

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