Read a site-wide fix plan

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

Goes well beyond the annotations (which only declare read-only/idempotent/non-destructive) by disclosing cost ('Free: does not use a credit') and the required auth scope ('domain:read'). Both are operationally decisive facts an agent cannot get from the structured fields.

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, no filler, and the highest-value information (what you get, then how to select the run, then cost/scope) is ordered by importance.

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 output schema covers the return structure, so the description only needs selection logic, cost, and scope — all three are present. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly is missing.

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 per-parameter docs already carry the baseline. The description adds a real constraint the schema does not encode — 'Pass exactly one of domain_id or site_analysis_id' — since neither parameter is marked required and no oneOf is declared.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Read the ranked, site-wide fix plan from a domain's latest site analysis.' It even previews the record shape (pages affected, fix instructions, URLs to verify), which separates it cleanly from siblings like get_findings or get_report.

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?

Gives a clear selection rule for the two entry points ('domain_id (latest run)' vs 'site_analysis_id (a specific run)'), plus prerequisite scope. It does not, however, say when to prefer get_findings or get_report over this tool, so routing between siblings is left implicit.

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