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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses important behavior: each page consumes one site audit quota unit, oversized requests are refused, audits run in the background by fetching pages, and results are retrieved via list-site-audits. It does not cover permissions or immediate response details, but the quota and async behavior are valuable additions.

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 tight sentences. It front-loads the core action, then adds quota behavior, then explains asynchronous execution and result retrieval, with no redundant or wasted wording.

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 the mutation-style operation, two parameters, and absence of an output schema, the description covers the key facts an agent needs: scope, quota consumption, refusal on overage, background execution, and where results appear. It could be slightly more complete by stating what the immediate queued response contains, but the essential behavior is present.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description clarifies that page_ids targets a specific subset and omitting them targets all tracked pages, but this largely mirrors the schema rather than adding new semantic detail.

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 uses a specific verb, 'Queue', with the precise resource, 'site health audit', and states the two scopes: a domain's tracked pages or specific page IDs. It also names the sibling tool where results appear, making it clearly distinguishable from list-site-audits and related audit 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?

It gives clear usage context: queue an audit for tracked pages or specific page IDs, note that quota is consumed, and directs the agent to list-site-audits for results. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives for triggering audits, which keeps it from a 5.

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