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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. On top of that the description discloses the return shape ('Returns fixes with node ids'), which matters because no output schema exists. It could still say whether the audit is static or fetches live pages, but the added return-value context is real value beyond the annotations.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and scope, then the checked dimensions and the return contract. No filler and nothing repeated.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully notes that fixes with node ids are returned, and the read-only annotations cover side-effect behavior. It is complete enough to invoke correctly, though it omits output format detail (e.g., severity, pagination) that might matter for a broad audit.

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 schema already explains id, pageId and templateSlug, including the 'Not with templateSlug' exclusion. The description only restates that a site or template can be targeted, adding no syntax or default details beyond the structured fields. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb ('Score') plus resource ('a site or template page') plus an enumerated list of what is scored (meta, heading hierarchy, alt text, link text, content depth). This clearly separates it from the sibling audit_accessibility, which the agent can infer covers a different concern.

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 phrase 'a site or template page' implies the two usage modes (id vs templateSlug), but the description never states when to choose a template audit over a site audit, nor does it name or exclude the related audit_accessibility sibling. Usage must be inferred from the schema constraints rather than the prose.

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