util_website_intelligence_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries full disclosure burden, but it only describes the output composition, not behavioral traits like making network requests, performance implications, or error states. The flexible input object is unexplained.

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 single-sentence description is concise but lacks necessary details. It is front-loaded but insufficient for tool selection or invocation.

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 complexity (composite report, flexible input, no output schema), the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain input structure, output format, or operational behavior, making it difficult for an agent to use correctly.

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 0% description coverage and only one parameter 'arguments' with additionalProperties true. The description does not clarify what keys or values are expected (e.g., URL, domain). The agent cannot infer the required input format.

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 it is a 'composite website intelligence report' that includes multiple signal types (page, social, link, feed, form, contact). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that extract individual signals, making it clear this tool provides an aggregated report.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this composite report versus the individual extract tools (e.g., util_page_extract, util_links_extract). The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or scenarios where this tool is preferred.

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