Read a page report

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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/closed-world safety, but the description adds non-obvious behavior: never rescans, returns a snapshot of the page as scanned, errors on unknown or cross-account IDs, and consumes no credit.

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?

Front-loads the core action and payload, then layers usage, staleness semantics, error behavior, and cost in tight successive clauses with no 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?

An output schema exists, so return-shape explanation is unnecessary; the description still covers the snapshot semantics, error conditions, and free-of-credit cost that an agent needs to call and interpret this tool correctly.

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% and the report_id parameter already documents its origin tools and UUID format, so the description's provenance remarks largely restate the schema. No additional syntax or constraint detail is added, making the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb (Read) and resource (stored page report), and enumerates the payload (scores, prioritized fix checklist, plan-locked fix note). It clearly distinguishes itself from the analysis siblings by emphasizing stored/saved 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 scopes use to when a report ID is already in hand and names the three tools that produce one (analyze_website, check_status, list_reports). It also names the alternative path — call analyze_website to see changes — so the agent can route correctly.

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