get_security_score

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explains the dual execution paths (local quick scanner vs. full cloud path), automatic fallback on quota exhaustion, and what the response includes. This is solid transparency, though it does not mention side-effect status or authentication mechanics in detail.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the main purpose, immediately followed by a useful bulleted return summary and then the behavioral notes. It is efficient and well-structured, with no obvious filler, though slightly more verbose than strictly necessary.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description appropriately lists the key return fields. It also covers the account/quota-dependent execution paths, which is important behavioral context. Minor gaps remain, such as not mentioning URL requirements or how to enable the cloud path via connect_account, but the tool is still adequately described for invocation.

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?

The input schema already covers the single 'url' parameter at 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context that the URL is for a website and that the result is a rating, but it does not add format, validation, or constraint details beyond the schema.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Get a quick security rating for a website' and lists concrete outputs such as score, grade, metrics, and quick wins. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like scan_website or get_scan_results, so it lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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?

The description gives useful context about account-based behavior and quota fallback: without an account it uses the local scanner, with an account it uses the cloud path, and it falls back when quota is exhausted. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over scan_website, get_scan_results, or other siblings.

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