check_website

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds details beyond annotations: it fetches the live page server-side and detects tracking/processing (analytics, marketing pixels, etc.), returning per-vendor signals and recommendations. No contradictions.

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 two sentences with no fluff. The first sentence front-loads the purpose and the second adds relevant detail. Every word earns its place.

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 read-only check tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains what it checks, how it works, what it returns, and usage context relative to siblings.

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% with a single parameter 'url' already clearly described in the schema. The description does not add additional semantics for the parameter beyond what the schema provides, so 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?

The description explicitly states it is a 'Free, no-signup compliance check of a DEPLOYED website by URL' and distinguishes it from sibling tool 'scan_project', which reads local source. The verb 'check' and resource 'website' are clearly indicated.

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 specifies when to use: 'use check_website after deploying, or for a site whose code you don't have.' It also contrasts with 'scan_project' and mentions it complements that tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it, which would improve clarity.

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