Report for one page of a site scan

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the payload includes per-finding remediation steps and a done-when check, but says nothing about prerequisites (scan_id must reference an existing scan) or what happens when the page path is not in the scan. Adequate but not rich.

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, with the content enumeration front-loaded before the usage hint. Efficient, though the second sentence is thin enough that it could have carried more routing value.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description usefully enumerates the return shape (score, categories, findings, steps, done-when check). For a read-only, single-object retrieval tool with fully documented parameters, that covers most of what an agent needs; only error/precondition behavior 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 description coverage is 100%, so scan_id, page, and lang are fully documented in the schema, including the enum and the default for lang. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 concrete noun+scope: 'the full report for a single page of a site scan,' and enumerates what it contains (score, categories, findings, steps, done-when check). It implicitly contrasts with the site-wide sibling slop_report via 'a single page,' but never names an alternative, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

'Use it to work through a site page by page' gives a workflow hint, which is more than nothing, but there is no explicit when-not condition and no named alternative (e.g., use slop_report for the whole site, slop_fix to act on findings). Usage is implied rather than specified.

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