Scan a site for AI agent readability

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds significant behavioral context: anonymous free tier limits (3 scans/30 days, 25-page depth), synchronous execution with timeout, and fallback to async polling. No contradiction with annotations; description enriches them.

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: first sentence states purpose and output structure; second sentence covers tiers, limits, and polling fallback. Every clause earns its place; no redundancy. Front-loaded with key action and results.

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 tool's medium complexity, the description covers purpose, input (URL), output (structured scores), tier behavior, and polling mechanism. Output schema exists, so return values need not be detailed. All necessary information for correct selection and invocation is present.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds plan-specific caps for pageLimit (Free 25, Pro 250, Team 2000), which is not in the schema. This helps the agent choose appropriate values, justifying a 4.

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 verb 'runs the agent-ready.dev scanner' and the resource 'a URL', and specifies the structured results (Vercel score, llmstxt.org score, per-check findings). It implicitly distinguishes from sibling 'get_scan' by mentioning polling, so an agent knows this initiates the scan while get_scan retrieves results.

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 explains when to use the tool (to scan a site) and provides tier-specific behavior (free with limits, Pro deeper). It explicitly instructs to poll with 'get_scan' if the deadline elapses. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., for already-scanned sites), but that is implied.

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