Audit site (homepage + robots + sitemap + schema)

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint. The description adds significant context: 'read-only', 'HTTP GETs', 'no writes, no auth required, no rate limits', 'deduplicated', 'deterministic, rule-based scoring; no LLM calls', and 'same domain returns same grade'. No contradictions.

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 comprehensive but well-structured, with key information front-loaded (purpose, behavior, output). Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly trimmed without losing clarity.

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 the tool's complexity (multiple sub-audits, deterministic scoring, output structure), the description covers input, behavior, output components, and use cases thoroughly. It mentions the output fields (domain, homepage_url, etc.) and sub-audit results, making it complete even without the output schema.

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%. The description for the 'domain' parameter includes examples, explains the sub-audits run in parallel, and notes that it issues several HTTP GETs. The 'respect_robots' parameter is also well described. This adds meaning beyond the schema.

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 as a 'Single-call site sweep' that runs multiple audits in parallel and returns an overall grade and top-5 fixes. It differentiates itself from siblings like audit_sitemap (samples pages from sitemap) and audit_page (single-URL deep dive) with specific verbs and resources.

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 provides a 'When to use' section: 'quick how does this site look overall?' and distinguishes from alternative tools (audit_sitemap, audit_page). It also states it is read-only and issues HTTP GETs, but could more explicitly mention when not to use it (e.g., when deep multi-page analysis is needed).

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