See a sample audit (no key needed)

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, but the description goes further by explaining the data is fixed, clearly marked as a sample, and always describes example.com. This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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?

Each sentence earns its place: purpose, usage triggers, output shape, then the important caveat about sample vs real audits. It is slightly long but information-dense and logically ordered, with no redundant phrases.

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 zero-parameter demo tool with no output schema, the description fully explains the return shape (scored summary, per-test results, AI-visibility breakdown) and the boundary conditions. The sibling list provides the real-audit alternative, so nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately communicates that no API key or setup is required, which is the only relevant 'parameter-like' context. There are no parameter details needed because the schema is empty.

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 opens with the exact action and resource: 'Show a complete sample Website Auditor report.' It distinguishes itself from siblings by clarifying it returns static data for example.com and never a user's own site, so an agent can tell it apart from run_audit and similar tools.

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?

Explicitly lists trigger intents ('try it,' 'see a demo,' 'show me what this does') and directs agents to use it INSTEAD of refusing when no API key is configured. It also states the alternative condition — auditing a real domain needs a subscription — giving clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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