audit_url

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key traits: the tool initiates an asynchronous scan (implied by the token return), specifies typical completion time ('30–60 seconds'), and indicates it's a free service. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions, leaving some gaps.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by essential usage and timing details in two concise sentences. Every sentence earns its place by providing critical information without redundancy, making it highly efficient and well-structured.

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's moderate complexity (asynchronous scan initiation), no annotations, and no output schema, the description does well by explaining the process, return value (scan token), and typical timing. However, it lacks details on error handling or scan limitations, which could be important for robust agent operation.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting the single 'url' parameter. The description adds no additional parameter details beyond what the schema provides (e.g., no extra syntax rules or examples). According to the rules, with high schema coverage, the baseline is 3 even without param info in the description.

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 specific action ('Submit a website URL for a free Polaris Audit scan') and resource ('website URL'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_scan_result (which retrieves results) and get_public_result (likely for public reports). It avoids tautology by explaining the scan process rather than just restating the name.

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?

It explicitly states when to use this tool ('to submit a URL for scanning') and provides a clear alternative ('use with get_scan_result to retrieve the completed report'), directly naming the sibling tool. This gives the agent precise guidance on workflow sequencing without ambiguity.

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