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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses pagination (max 100), the crawler's behavior of following redirects and saving the final status (thus excluding redirects from results), and implies sorting/filtering capabilities. It doesn't cover error handling or return format, but the key behavioral traits are well communicated.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by filtering/sorting/pagination details and the redirect caveat. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or fluff, making it highly efficient.

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 paginated list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the primary use, parameter behavior, an edge case, and an alternative tool. It lists the returned fields in the first sentence and mentions pagination limits. It doesn't detail error handling or authentication, but these are likely platform-level concerns. It is fairly complete for its complexity.

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 only 20% (project_id alone has a description). The description explains the issue parameter's special value ('errors' = 4xx/5xx) and mentions filtering and sorting, plus pagination limits. However, it doesn't elaborate on other enum values for issue or order_by, leaving the agent to infer their meaning. Given the low schema coverage, it should compensate more, but it does add some value.

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 clearly states the tool returns pages from the latest SEO audit with specific fields (status, title, word count, load/LCP/TTI times, issue flags). It also distinguishes itself from get_audit_redirects by explicitly noting that redirects are not included, making its scope precise and easily differentiable from siblings.

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 explicitly instructs when to use get_audit_redirects instead (for redirects), and clarifies the special meaning of issue='errors' as 4xx/5xx pages. It provides clear context for when this tool is appropriate, even though it doesn't mention every sibling, the named alternative and condition satisfy the 'explicit when-not/alternatives' criterion.

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