darklens_audit_url

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully reveals the return shape (score 0-100, pass/fail, findings with remediation) and the compliance regimes checked, but says nothing about whether the audit is read-only, whether it performs a live network fetch (latency/failure modes if the site is unreachable or behind auth), or any rate limits.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste, with the capability stated first and the return contract second. Nothing is repeated from the schema and nothing is padded.

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?

For a three-parameter audit tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers both what is checked and what comes back, which is enough to invoke it correctly. The remaining gap is operational context — network fetch behavior, timeouts, and whether staged/internal URLs are reachable.

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%, so url, failOn, and threshold are all documented in the schema itself. The description adds no meaning beyond that — notably it never explains failOn or threshold, which are the parameters that determine what the agent interprets as a failure.

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 and resource ("Audit any staging or live URL") and enumerates the scope of what is checked (dark patterns, FTC/GDPR/CCPA/EU DSA, checkout traps). It implicitly separates itself from darklens_audit_html by targeting a URL rather than markup, but never names the sibling or states the distinction explicitly.

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?

"Any staging or live URL" gives loose context for when the tool applies, but there is no explicit when-not guidance and no routing between this and darklens_audit_html (URL vs raw HTML input). An agent must infer the choice from the parameter type alone.

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