page_audit

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the paid nature and price (0.03 USDC on Base via x402), the speed profile, and the no-crawl behavior. It omits auth/payment mechanics context and any rate-limit or idempotency traits that would matter for a paid call. Solid but not exhaustive.

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?

A single dense sentence with the key discriminator ('ONE page', 'no crawl') and the notable behavioral detail (cost) front-loaded. No filler words; every clause earns its place.

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?

For a paid, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool the description covers scope, speed, cost, and returned artifacts. It leaves the payment/confirmation flow (the unusual confirmNewPurchase param) to the schema, which is defensible, but a hint about the x402 purchase lifecycle would round it out.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents url, enable_javascript, and confirmNewPurchase, including the non-obvious purchase-confirmation semantics. The description adds nothing about parameters, which is acceptable given full coverage but is the baseline rather than added value.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (technical audit) with an explicit scope limiter ('ONE page') and distinguishes itself from crawl-based site audits by saying 'no crawl'. An agent can separate this from siblings like site_audit and site_audit_onpage immediately. It also enumerates the outputs (OnPage score, meta, timings, failed checks).

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?

Clearly frames when to use it: single-page, instant, seconds instead of minutes, and explicitly not a crawl. However it never names an alternative sibling tool (e.g., site_audit for multi-page) by name, so the routing decision is implied rather than explicit. No when-not guidance beyond 'ONE page'.

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