E-E-A-T site audit

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds behavioral detail: it returns a pass/fail checklist with recommendations, and it checks a sample of articles for bylines and dates. This goes beyond the annotations and gives the agent a concrete sense of what will happen.

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 sentence with a list of checks, which is efficient and front-loads the core purpose ('Site-level trust signals'). The list is dense but every item is relevant to E-E-A-T. No redundant fluff.

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?

The description explains the tool's scope, the checks performed, and the output (pass/fail checklist with what to add). It does not explicitly define the sampleArticles parameter's role, but given the simple schema and read-only nature, it is reasonably complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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?

The description mentions 'a sample of articles' which implicitly relates to the sampleArticles parameter, but it does not explicitly state that sampleArticles controls the sample size or its constraints (default 5, max 20). Since schema coverage is 0%, the description could compensate more, but the intent is partially conveyed. siteUrl is self-evident.

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 audits site-level trust signals for search and AI engines, listing specific elements checked (About/Contact pages, schema, social profiles, etc.) and the return format (pass/fail checklist). This is a specific verb+resource with a distinct scope, easily differentiated from siblings like structured_data_audit which focus narrowly on schema validation.

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 scopes to 'site-level' trust signals, which implies it is for whole-site audits rather than page-level analysis. It does not name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance, but the context is clear enough to infer appropriate usage.

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