site_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 disclose a major behavioral trait: the call costs 1 USDC on Base via x402, which an agent must know before invoking. It also bounds the crawl at 20 pages. It stops short of stating payment/idempotency semantics, whether a partial crawl still charges, or any rate limits — though confirmNewPurchase in the schema hints at repeat-purchase behavior.

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, front-loaded with the highest-value framing ('Complete SEO picture of a domain in one call') followed by the enumerated deliverables and the cost. Every clause carries information, though the run-on structure and the parenthetical cost clause make it slightly harder to scan.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description usefully enumerates the return payload (traffic, keywords, competitors, backlinks, on-page score, duplicates, broken links, non-indexable pages, SSL) and states the pricing model. The main gap is the completely unexplained localization parameters, which no structured field covers.

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 50%, and the description adds nothing about parameters at all — language_code and location_code have no descriptions anywhere, and their defaults (de, 2276) are never explained. The only numeric detail in the description ('up to 20 pages') is not a parameter. The description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 enumerates the concrete outputs (traffic estimate, ranked keywords, organic competitors, backlink profile, on-page crawl up to 20 pages), so an agent knows exactly what this composite tool returns. It signals bundling with 'in one call' but never names the sibling alternatives (traffic_estimate, ranked_keywords, backlinks_report, site_audit_onpage) it overlaps with, so differentiation is left to inference.

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?

Usage is only implied: the phrase 'Complete SEO picture ... in one call' suggests reaching for this instead of assembling the individual keyword/backlink/competitor tools, and the on-page crawl overlaps with site_audit_onpage. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or routing statement against any of the many siblings.

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