See a sample audit (no key needed)

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description reveals that the tool returns fixed sample data for example.com in the exact shape of a real audit, includes scored summary, per-test results, and AI-visibility breakdown, and is clearly marked as a sample. It also warns that it never describes the user's own site. This adds significant behavioral context beyond what annotations provide.

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 somewhat lengthy but every sentence serves a purpose: purpose, usage cases, output details, and limitations. It is front-loaded with the core action and then flows logically. It could be tightened slightly, but the structure is clear and efficient.

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 tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description fully carries the burden of explaining what the user gets and when to use it. It details the output shape, the fact it's a sample, and the boundaries (never the user's site, real audits need subscription). This is complete for the tool's simplicity.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the description cannot add parameter-level semantics. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description correctly focuses on the output and use case rather than inventing irrelevant parameter details. No additional param info is needed.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Show a complete sample Website Auditor report.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing it's a sample, no key needed, and for example.com only, contrasting with real audits that require a subscription. This is unambiguous and fully captures the tool's purpose.

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 triggering phrases ('try it,' 'see a demo,' 'show me what this does') and tells the agent to use it INSTEAD of refusing when no API key is configured. It also contrasts with real audits ('auditing a real domain needs a subscription'), making the alternative usage clear. This is exemplary usage guidance.

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