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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates an analysis-oriented operation but does not state whether it performs network fetches, parses files locally, returns a report, or has any side effects. There is no enrichment beyond the basic 'identifies risks' claim.

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 efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and follows with a compact, scannable list of risk categories. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

The tool is simple with only one parameter, and the description covers its primary purpose well. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves out return format and behavioral context, and it does not help an agent choose among closely related audit siblings. It is minimally viable but not complete.

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 the target parameter is already documented as a file path or live URL. The description adds no additional meaning about how the target is used or validated, but because the schema already covers it, a baseline score is appropriate.

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 ('identifies') and a clear resource ('code-level Core Web Vitals risks'), then enumerates concrete risk categories: CLS, LCP, and render-blocking scripts. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like seo_audit_content or seo_audit_technical by naming exact technical concerns.

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 context is implied: use this tool when investigating Core Web Vitals or performance-related code risks. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over seo_audit_technical, seo_audit_onpage, or seo_generate_full_audit, nor does it mention any exclusion criteria.

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