check_pagespeed

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility. It discloses credit consumption and API key requirement, and lists return metrics. However, it doesn't mention if the tool is read-only, rate limits, error handling, or destructive behavior. Basic transparency is present but gaps remain.

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 brief (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core functionality. It is concise without unnecessary detail. However, it could be improved by structuring the parameter information and listing the return values more systematically.

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?

Given no annotations but an output schema exists, the description covers main return values and credit cost. However, it lacks detail on parameter usage, error scenarios, and integration context. For a tool with only two parameters and a clear purpose, this is barely adequate.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does not mention either parameter ('url' or 'strategy') and provides no guidance on their values or defaults. The default for 'strategy' (mobile) is not indicated. This fails to add meaning beyond the schema structure.

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 checks PageSpeed and Core Web Vitals, listing specific metrics (performance, accessibility, SEO scores, LCP, CLS, TBT, optimization opportunities). The verb 'Check' and resource 'PageSpeed' are specific, and the purpose is well-differentiated from sibling tools by its focus on page speed metrics.

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 provides context like credit cost and required API key, and suggests using 'get_account_info' to check balance. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it.

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