Shareable report + badge

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description discloses the subscription requirement, pricing, trial details, and payment-method prerequisite. This adds meaningful context about auth and business constraints that the annotations do not cover, so the agent knows the operational implications.

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 sentences with heavy front-loading: the first sentence names the action and outputs, the second gives usage triggers and exclusions. Despite the length of the second sentence, every detail (pricing, alternative) is relevant to correct invocation, so it earns its place.

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?

Given the simple schema and presence of annotations, the description fully covers what the tool returns (URL and HTML snippet), when to use it, and what to do if prerequisites are unmet. It compensates for the lack of an output schema by stating the return types explicitly and is complete for an agent's decision-making.

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 schema covers the only parameter (domain) with a clear description, so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add any extra meaning beyond implicitly referencing the website, which the schema already captures. Thus no enhancement over schema is provided.

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 states the tool 'Get a shareable report URL and the embeddable badge snippet for a website,' which is a specific verb-plus-resource phrasing. It also distinguishes from siblings by explicitly mentioning the alternative get_sample_audit, so the tool's unique purpose is unmistakable.

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 provides explicit triggers: 'Use this when someone wants to share, export, send a client, or embed the audit result.' It also gives a clear when-not: if the user lacks a subscription, call get_sample_audit first. This directly guides tool selection and offers a concrete alternative.

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