scan_site

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does well: it discloses the return payload (0–100 score, violations with ruble fines, machine-actionable fix instructions, document/cookie/tracker analysis), the reachability prerequisite, and the verify-by-rescanning pattern. It omits auth requirements, scan duration, and whether the target site is in any way modified.

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-loaded with the core purpose and densely packed with actionable detail; almost every clause earns its place. The trailing Russian one-liner is largely a restatement and adds redundancy without new information.

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 complex scanning tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, triggers, returns, prerequisites, and follow-up workflow. Remaining gaps are operational (auth, runtime, rate limits, storage of scanned data) rather than about what the tool does.

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 parameter mechanics are already documented. The description still adds value by stating the URL must point to a publicly reachable live site (no localhost), a validation constraint the schema does not express.

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 precise verb (scan) plus resource (a LIVE website) and the exact compliance domains checked (152-FZ, 38-FZ, 408-FZ, 273-FZ, 323-FZ). This clearly differentiates it from the retrieval-oriented siblings list_scans and get_scan.

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 concrete triggers ('launching/reviewing a site for the Russian market', keyword queries like 152-ФЗ, персональные данные, cookies, Роскомнадзор) and a re-run-for-verification workflow after fixes. It also constrains applicability ('must be publicly reachable, not localhost'), though it never explicitly names get_scan as the alternative for already-completed results.

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