Start a guided check

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

Adds real behavior beyond the annotations: the form flow, the second confirmation form when the care level requires it, the exact return shapes (plan with guidance then ordered calls, or four plain questions), and two safety statements ('Never asks for a password', 'Touches no browser'). It leaves the non-idempotent, non-read-only character implied rather than stated, so it isn't fully transparent about what state the intake creates.

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?

One dense paragraph that front-loads the trigger condition and then walks through the branches in the order an agent will encounter them. Slightly run-on ('how they sign in, how careful to be and how thorough'), but no sentence is expendable.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description fully covers both possible returns and the two-form interaction sequence. An agent knows what it will get back and what it must do next in either branch.

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?

With one parameter at 100% schema coverage the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema does not: the url is optional and pre-fills the form when the person already stated the address. That is a genuine behavioral note about how the parameter is consumed.

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 action: elicit the person's checking preferences when no settings were given, then build a guided plan. It distinguishes itself from siblings like scout_guided_plan and scout_guided_confirm by describing the two-form flow and the chat fallback. The opening phrase 'Ask how the person wants their site checked' is slightly indirect as a verb+resource statement, but the rest of the description pins the purpose down.

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?

Gives a clear entry condition ('when they gave no settings') and describes the branch taken when the client cannot render a form or the person declines/closes it. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative (e.g. scout_guided_plan) for the case where settings already exist, which keeps it out of the top band.

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