Score presence out of 10

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds real behavior beyond that by disclosing the implicit extraction step when only a url is passed, and that the four booleans act as manual overrides of extracted signals. It does not state how overrides interact with conflicting signal values, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: purpose and outputs come first, input routing second, override list last. Some compression makes it read as a run-on, but no sentence is filler.

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 read-only scoring tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently characterizes the return (numeric score, ranked gaps, recommended offer) and the two input paths. The only soft spot is not saying what happens when override booleans conflict with extracted signals.

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 the schema already documents each field. The description adds the precedence rule between url and signals and frames the four nullable booleans as 'manual overrides', clarifying that setting them supersedes derived signals — meaning beyond a bare field listing.

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 verb and resource ('Score a business's web presence') and names the artifact it produces: audit checkpoints 0-10, gaps ranked by revenue impact, and a recommended offer. That output detail distinguishes it clearly from the sibling extraction tools, which only gather raw data.

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 routes the agent on input mode: 'Provide either signals (from extract_signals) or a url (will extract first)', naming the upstream sibling and the fallback path. It lacks an explicit when-not-to-use statement, but the context of use is unambiguous.

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