analyze_website

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden, and it discloses nothing behavioral: no indication that it fetches the site over the network, whether it aggregates the sibling analyses, whether it is read-only or slow, or whether results are cached.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler, which is structurally clean, but its brevity comes from under-specification rather than economy of expression.

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 tool sitting among 26 granular analyzers, with no output schema and no annotations, the description should clarify the aggregate-vs-specific relationship and the shape of the result. Neither is addressed, leaving the agent to guess.

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 0% and the description says nothing about the single required 'url' parameter — no format, scoping, or whether redirects/subpages are followed. The uri format in the schema is the only signal, and the description adds none.

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?

Names a verb ('Run') and a resource ('website intelligence analysis'), but 'complete ... intelligence analysis' is vague about what is actually inspected or returned. Against siblings like analyze_title and analyze_meta, it hints at being an umbrella/aggregate tool but never says so explicitly.

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?

No when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives, despite 26 sibling analyzers covering specific facets. An agent cannot tell from this text whether to call this instead of, or in addition to, the granular tools.

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