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

No annotations exist; the description carries full burden. It discloses return values ('status, evidence, and a fix recommendation') and a default behavior ('omits raw remote artifacts by default'), but does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, whether it requires authentication, 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?

Three sentences with no wasted words. Front-loads purpose, then provides usage guidance, then lists output and behavior. Every sentence serves a distinct function.

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 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and return structure adequately. It also references list_checks for valid IDs. Missing minor details like whether the operation is synchronous, but sufficient for an agent to invoke 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's descriptions for url and check_id; it only provides examples, which are already implied by the pattern.

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 names the action ('Run one specific agent-readiness check'), identifies the resource ('a site'), provides concrete examples of check IDs, and distinguishes from siblings like scan_site and get_fix_plan.

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?

Explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('targeted validation after making a fix or when debugging one signal'), when not to use it ('use scan_site for the complete ASO Score and get_fix_plan for a prioritized remediation roadmap'), and a prerequisite action ('Use list_checks first').

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool is read-only, does not fetch or scan, and provides a source URL. This clear behavioral disclosure is sufficient.

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 with no wasted words. The key information is front-loaded, and every sentence adds value.

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 no output schema, the description fully explains the return contents, includes a source URL, and covers all necessary context for a reference tool with no parameters.

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?

There are zero parameters, so baseline is 4. The description adds meaning by explaining what the tool returns, which goes beyond the empty schema.

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 tool returns the ASO framework reference with specific components (six signal pillars, maturity levels, etc.). It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly stating it does not fetch or scan a website.

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 tells when to use the tool (education, documentation, explaining scores) and what it does not do. While it does not explicitly name alternatives, the context of sibling tools like scan_site and check_signal provides implicit differentiation.

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

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. 'Scan a site' implies read-only but doesn't explicitly state safety, side effects, or authorization needs. Lacks explicit disclosure that it does not modify the site.

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?

Relatively concise single sentence front-loading purpose, followed by usage guidance. Slight run-on but no wasted words.

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 simple tool (1 param, no output schema), description covers output contents (plan, points, templates) and provides alternatives. Lacks only explicit safety behavior, but otherwise complete.

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?

Only one parameter (url) with schema coverage 100%. Description does not add extra semantic beyond schema's 'Website URL or domain to plan fixes for'. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Clearly states verb and resource: 'Scan a site and return a prioritized remediation plan'. Distinguishes from siblings by naming alternatives (scan_site, check_signal) and their use cases.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use this tool vs alternatives: 'Use this when the user wants an implementation roadmap or copy-paste fixes; use scan_site when they need full evidence...'.

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

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

Discloses that the tool is a read-only catalog listing with no side effects. No annotations exist, so description fully carries the burden and does so transparently.

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, front-loaded with action and output fields. Every sentence adds value—no wasted words.

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?

Complete for a parameterless listing tool: describes output, use cases, and boundaries. No output schema needed given 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?

No parameters; schema coverage is trivially 100%. Baseline of 4 is appropriate as description adds no parameter info beyond what schema already conveys.

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?

Clear verb 'list' with specific resource 'full catalog of supported ASO checks' and fields (id, name, category, description, spec link). Distinguishes from siblings by stating it does not scan or produce a score.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: before check_signal to discover valid check ids, to build UI filters, or to explain scanner coverage. Also states what it does not do (scan or score), providing clear guidance.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It thoroughly explains the 34 checks across multiple categories and describes return values. It also notes that include_artifacts returns 'untrusted attacker-controlled data'—a behavioral caveat. However, it doesn't explicitly state read-only nature or any side effects, scoring just below perfect.

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 thorough and structured: starts with purpose, then usage guidance, then lists check categories, then return values. While not extremely concise, every sentence adds value. Front-loading with purpose is well done.

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 complexity (34 checks, 3 parameters, no output schema), the description is nearly complete. It explains all important return fields (ASO Score, maturity level, verdict, scores, etc.). Missing explicit mention of output format (likely JSON) but implied. Overall, sufficient for an agent to understand what to expect.

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 coverage is 100% for all 3 parameters. Description adds value by clarifying usage of categories filter (omit for all checks) and warning about artifacts returning attacker-controlled data. This goes beyond the schema descriptions.

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?

Description clearly states the tool scans websites for Agent Readiness using ASO framework and returns a report. It explicitly distinguishes from siblings by naming check_signal and get_fix_plan, leaving no ambiguity about its specific function.

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?

Provides explicit usage scenarios: full baseline, competitive audit, before/after measurement. Also clearly states when to use alternatives: check_signal for single signal, get_fix_plan for remediation only. This gives clear decision criteria for the agent.

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