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

The annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond those hints, specifically that results are cached for 7 days per domain, which is important for agents deciding whether to call again or expect fresh data. It does not mention potential external network latency or failure modes, but the annotations cover the safety profile.

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 three sentences, each earning its place: what the tool returns, the caching behavior, and when to use it. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids any filler or repetition of schema details.

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 simple one-parameter read-only tool, the description is complete: it specifies inputs implicitly, enumerates the outputs, discloses caching behavior, and states the intended use case. The annotations cover safety and idempotence, so no critical behavioral information 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 0%, and the description only implicitly refers to the URL parameter by saying 'Analyze a website' and mentioning 'per domain.' The single parameter is self-explanatory with format: uri, so the gap is less severe than with multiple parameters, but the description still does not clarify URL conventions such as whether a root domain is required or whether subpages are acceptable.

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 verb ('Analyze a website') and the resource, then enumerates the specific output fields such as company name, services, target market, tech stack, and positioning. This makes it distinct from sibling tools like get_company or enrich_company_info, which operate on stored or enriched records rather than extracting fresh intelligence from a website URL.

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 provides clear context: 'Use this to gather context about a lead's company before creating campaigns.' It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, so it falls just short of a 5, but the stated use case gives an agent enough guidance for typical selection.

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