Shareable report + badge

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

Annotations already mark the tool as readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds value by disclosing that the output is a link and an HTML snippet, which is not inferable from annotations alone. No contradictions.

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 two crisp sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose; the second provides usage guidance and output summary. No filler, perfectly 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 one simple required parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers what the agent needs to know: input (domain), output (URL + badge snippet), and usage scenarios. No gaps.

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 single parameter 'domain' has 100% schema coverage with a clear description and example. The tool description does not add further semantics beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and names the exact resources ('shareable report URL', 'embeddable badge snippet') and the target ('website'). This distinguishes it clearly from sibling tools like run_audit or get_changes, which focus on execution or change detection.

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 explicitly lists use-cases ('share', 'export', 'send a client', 'embed'), guiding the agent on when to invoke this tool. It does not specify when not to use it or provide alternatives, but the context is sufficient for typical scenarios.

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