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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the asynchronous job pattern, the return value (job_id), the required polling loop, the finding grouping scheme, explicit exclusions, and an anti-hallucination guarantee ('Does NOT invent scores. Every action cites a real check id'). This is unusually rich behavioral context for a mutation-starting tool.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, followed by the polling instruction and scope exclusions. Every sentence earns its place; no filler or restatement of the name.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by explaining the immediate return, the polling target, and the shape of findings. The only real gap is the unexplained site_id parameter, which leaves some ambiguity for a 2-parameter tool.

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% — 'url' is documented but 'site_id' has no description anywhere. The description adds no meaning about either parameter (no format, no when site_id is required, no interaction with url), so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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+resource ('Start a full page audit') and immediately clarifies the async contract ('Returns a job_id immediately'). This distinguishes it from synchronous siblings like check_vitals or validate_schema without needing to open any schema.

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?

Explicitly names the follow-up workflow ('Poll with get_audit using that job_id until status is complete') and gives negative scope ('Does NOT measure keyword ranks, backlinks, traffic, or Search Console data'), which routes the agent away from this tool for those needs. It does not explicitly contrast with crawl_site or check_vitals, so it stops short of full when/when-not coverage.

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