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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys a read-only report operation by listing returned content, but it does not explicitly mention side effects, authentication needs, caching, or data freshness, although the tool appears side-effect-free.

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 well-structured sentence that front-loads the main purpose and then lists the report's components. Every element adds useful selection information and there is no 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?

For a one-parameter report tool with no output schema, the description does a good job enumerating what the report contains. It does not specify output structure or units, but the simple interface and explicit content list make it sufficiently 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 coverage is 100% for project_id, and the schema already describes it as the project ID from list_projects. The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline score of 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?

The description clearly identifies the tool as delivering a Core Web Vitals report for the last audit and enumerates specific contents: PSI-sampled pages, metrics, CrUX field data, AI development tickets, and the 10 worst LCP pages. It is clearly distinct from sibling audit tools by topic, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with any sibling.

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 'dell'ultimo audit' implies this tool targets the most recent audit, which gives some contextual guidance. However, it does not explain when to prefer this tool over get_audit_* siblings or when it should not be used.

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