audit_website

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the check list and that missing items become fixable findings (a useful output trait), but says nothing about network failure behavior, timeouts, redirects, or whether the URL must be publicly reachable — meaningful gaps for a fetch-and-inspect 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-loads the check list in the first sentence and keeps the Args block to a single line with a useful example. The 'Args:' formatting is slightly redundant against the schema but not wasteful.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers what is inspected. However, for a no-annotation network tool it omits failure modes and positional context relative to siblings like run_full_audit and find_website, leaving the agent to guess which tool to pick.

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?

One parameter at 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does name the parameter's meaning and give a concrete format example ('https://example.co.uk'), but adds nothing about scheme requirements, trailing paths, or redirect handling.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource (audit_website) and enumerates the exact checks performed (reachable, HTTPS, mobile viewport, page weight, load time, title/meta description), so the scope is concretely defined. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from run_full_audit or find_website, though 'quick' hints at a lighter scope.

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?

'Run the quick website hygiene checks' implies this is the lightweight variant, but no explicit when-to-use/when-not or alternative is named despite obvious siblings (run_full_audit, find_website). Usage is inferable but not stated.

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