ASO Scan — measure your ASO Score

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool performs 34 checks and returns a report, but does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive or safe (only implied). No mention of rate limits, timeouts, or confirmation prompts. The security warning for include_artifacts helps.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose. It is somewhat lengthy due to listing all 34 check categories, but each sentence provides meaningful detail. Could be slightly more concise.

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 explains return values (ASO Score, maturity level, verdict, per-pillar scores, evidence, recommendations) sufficiently. It could elaborate more on the report structure, but overall complete for most use cases.

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%, but the description adds significant value: clarifying url format, default behavior for categories, and a critical security warning for include_artifacts (untrusted content). This goes beyond the schema's basic 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?

The description clearly identifies the tool's purpose: scanning a website for Agent Readiness using ASO framework and returning a detailed Agent Readiness Report with a score, maturity level, and evidence. It lists the 34 check categories, distinguishing it from sibling tools like check_signal, get_aso_framework, etc.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, context for selection, or when not to use it. Sibling tools are not referenced, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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