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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose what detail=true adds and what the base payload contains, but it omits key behavioral facts: that an audit must have been run first (the 'ultimo audit' precondition is only implied), and there is no statement about permissions or read-only nature. Decent output disclosure, incomplete operational context.

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 purpose and payload are front-loaded in the first sentence, with the detail flag behavior second. It is dense but every clause enumerates a distinct returned field, so little is wasted; it could still be trimmed slightly, but 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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description must explain returns, and it does so thoroughly. The remaining gap is the missing precondition that a prior audit (run_audit) must exist for this report to have data, which an agent would need to know.

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 50%: project_id is documented in the schema ('da list_projects') while detail has only a bare boolean type. The description fills that gap by explaining exactly what detail=true returns (LCP phases, lazy-loaded LCP, third parties, layout shifts, fonts, unsized images, blocking resources, full CrUX), so the combined schema+description fully covers both parameters.

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 names a specific verb+resource (report Core Web Vitals dell'ultimo audit) and enumerates its contents at a useful granularity: PSI-sampled pages with perf score, LCP, CLS, TBT, TTFB, CrUX field data, AI tickets, and the 10 worst LCP pages. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_audit_overview or get_gsc_performance.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative among the many audit/CWV-adjacent siblings. The only usage hint is the detail=true flag, which is a parameter behavior, not a routing rule. An agent gets no help deciding this tool over get_audit_pages or get_audit_issue_details.

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