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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a useful return hint ('Returns fixes with node ids'), which matters since no output schema exists. It does not disclose permissions, limits, or whether the audit is exhaustive versus sampled.

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?

Two compact sentences, zero filler. The scope enumeration comes before the return-shape note, so the most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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 read-only audit with three well-documented optional params, the definition covers what is checked and what comes back. The missing piece is invocation guidance (which of id vs templateSlug to pick, and when to prefer this over audit_accessibility), but nothing needed to call it correctly is absent.

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 id/pageId/templateSlug semantics and the default page_home are already documented in the schema. The description's phrase 'site or template page' only lightly reinforces the mutually exclusive input modes. Baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb (score) and resource (site or template page), then enumerates the exact checks performed (meta, heading hierarchy, alt text, link text, content depth). This differentiates it from the sibling audit_accessibility by domain, though it never explicitly contrasts the two.

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 statement of when to run this audit versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention that the caller must pass either id or templateSlug. The mutual-exclusion rule lives only in the schema. The closest sibling, audit_accessibility, is never referenced.

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