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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds behavioral context by specifying the output includes scores and prioritized fixes, which goes beyond the annotations. No contradiction with annotations is present.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence free of filler. It clearly conveys the tool's purpose and key output aspects without unnecessary words.

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?

While the output schema exists and annotations cover safety, the description leaves gaps about the audit's depth (e.g., whether it crawls multiple pages), how scores are computed, or any time/rate implications. For a comprehensive audit tool, this is minimally adequate but lacks operational context that would aid an agent in deciding whether this matches user expectations.

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 has only one parameter 'url' with format uri and length constraints. With schema_description_coverage at 0%, the description carries the burden of explaining the parameter but never mentions 'url' or what kind of URL is expected (e.g., scheme, path, query). This lack of compensation results in a weak score.

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 ('Run') and clearly identifies the resource ('comprehensive website audit'). It explicitly lists the component domains (SEO, security, accessibility, performance) and states the output includes scores and prioritized fixes, which distinguishes it from individual audit tools like web.seo-audit or web.security-audit.

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 implies use when a holistic audit is needed by combining multiple audit dimensions, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or provide clear when-not-to-use conditions. It conveys context well enough for an agent to choose this over focused single-domain tools.

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