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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the $0.15 cost and that files must be public and supplied, but it does not explain side effects, network behavior, required permissions, rate limits, or what kind of result is returned.

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 two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The core purpose and cost are both stated efficiently and every sentence adds useful 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 paid audit tool with an opaque input schema and no output schema, the description is not complete enough. It omits the expected input structure, the scope of the audit, and the shape or content of the results, leaving an agent unable to reliably invoke and interpret the tool.

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 schema describes a single 'input' object with no documented properties and 0% schema description coverage. The phrase 'supplied public files' gives a hint about the intended input, but the description does not specify what keys, file formats, URLs, or payload structure the agent should provide.

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 identifies the resource being audited (sitemap and robots.txt) and states that it works from supplied public files. This is enough to distinguish it from sibling tools like seo_meta_audit or website_health, though it does not enumerate what the audit actually checks.

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?

No guidance is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives such as seo_meta_audit or broken_link_report. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or conditions to help an agent choose it correctly.

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