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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, and it delivers well: it discloses the 6-credit cost, that billing only occurs on return, that already-shipped fixes are excluded, the return structure ({ id, theme, page, issue, evidence, fix }), the one-PR-per-theme grouping, and the meta.fixIds dedup workflow. Missing auth/permission or latency details keep it from a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then cost and workflow notes. The long parenthetical audit list is dense but earns its place by conveying scope. It is a single dense sentence plus two short follow-ups, with little waste.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly takes on the return-value burden by naming the fix-spec fields and grouping. Combined with cost, dedup, and downstream recording instructions, an agent has everything needed to call it and handle the result.

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 coverage is 100% for the single 'url' parameter, so the schema already documents it (including the homepage default). The description adds no additional syntax or format meaning for the parameter, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Audit the live site') and enumerates the exact audit surface (robots rules for AI crawlers, firewall, rendering, indexing, canonicals, etc.). The 'live site' framing distinguishes it from siblings like app_audit, verify, and check_content, which target different artifacts.

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?

Usage is only implied – an agent infers it should call this to obtain site fix specs. There is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not versus app_audit, verify, or check_content. It does give downstream workflow guidance ('when you record the PR, put fix ids in meta.fixIds'), which is useful but not tool-selection guidance.

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