page_audit

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

The description adds valuable behavior beyond annotations: it names the provider (DataForSEO On-Page Instant Pages), notes that no JavaScript rendering is performed, discloses sandbox dummy-data/no-payment behavior, and warns that title and description are third-party content. It does not explain why readOnlyHint is false despite the audit being a read operation, leaving a minor gap.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then efficiently adds provider, sandbox, and safety notes. Every sentence contributes distinct information without repetition or padding.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by listing the categories of returned data. It also covers sandbox behavior and JavaScript limitations. It could be slightly more complete by clarifying production billing/credit behavior or request limits, but it is sufficient for a single-parameter audit tool.

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 the single URL parameter is already fully documented, including rejection of IP addresses, ports, and credentials. The description adds context about auditing one public page but does not provide additional parameter-level guidance 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 gives a specific verb and resource ('technical SEO audit of one public page') and enumerates the audited elements: status code, title, meta description, headings, links, images, load time, and on-page checks. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools such as keyword_metrics, google_serp, or domain_overview.

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 scope is clear ('one public page') and the sandbox note sets development expectations, but the description does not explicitly contrast this tool with alternatives like domain_overview or competitors. It still gives enough context to know when this tool is appropriate.

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