Score Agentic Browsing readiness

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and no destruction. The description adds significant behavioral context: 'Read-only. One HTTP GET for the page plus one for /llms.txt... Deterministic, rule-based heuristics... no LLM and no headless render required.' It also clarifies limitations (approximates Lighthouse, does not execute it). No contradiction with annotations.

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 concise and well-structured. It opens with a clear purpose statement, then provides detailed behavior, parameter guidance, and usage context. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy. The final paragraph succinctly covers when to use and alternatives.

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 (5 parameters, output schema exists), the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, behavioral details, parameter semantics, usage guidelines, and sibling differentiation. The existence of an output schema means return values need not be detailed. The description is fully satisfactory.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond schema by explaining parameter interactions, e.g., 'Pass html instead of url to score markup offline (llms.txt is then treated as absent)' and 'Set false to skip that extra HTTP GET' for check_llms_txt. This contextual guidance elevates it above baseline.

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's purpose: 'Score a page against the four signals Google added to the Lighthouse Agentic Browsing category.' It specifies the verb (score), resource (page), and the specific signals. It distinguishes from siblings by directly naming alternatives like score_citation_worthiness and audit_page.

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 provides usage guidance: 'When to use: checking whether a site is ready for AI agents / agentic browsers, or tracking the new Lighthouse Agentic Browsing category.' It also lists alternative tools for different tasks, clearly defining when not to use this tool.

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