analyze_website

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly lists the actions the tool performs (detects, locates, estimates, reports) and implies a read-only inspection. While it doesn't mention potential side effects or network behavior, the 'inspect' framing is sufficiently transparent for this tool.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Inspect a website before scraping it') and then lists concrete outcomes. It is concise, with no filler or redundant content.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter) and there is an output schema, so the description doesn't need to detail return values. It covers the main behaviors and differentiates from siblings. However, it doesn't mention error handling or behavior for unresponsive sites, which could be relevant but is not critical given the output schema likely covers return structures.

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 description coverage is 0% and the description does not explicitly explain the 'url' parameter format. It implicitly associates 'website' with the URL, but it does not provide details like expected scheme (http/https) or whether the URL must be a full absolute URL. With only one parameter, this isn't a major gap, but the description adds minimal parameter-specific value.

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's function with a specific verb ('Inspect'), a resource ('a website'), and detailed capabilities (detect platform, locate sitemap, estimate pages, report JS rendering). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like fetch_page or crawl_site by focusing on pre-scraping analysis.

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 phrase 'before scraping it' gives clear contextual guidance on when to use this tool, implying it should precede scraping operations. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide exclusion criteria, so it falls short of a full 5.

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