audit_pages

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 some behavior: it is free, reads a default /sitemap.xml, and reports specific problem categories. It does not state read-only status, permissions, rate limits, pagination, or how limits are enforced.

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 a single dense sentence that front-loads cost and core behavior, then enumerates the problems detected. Every clause adds useful information without filler.

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?

The description explains the main output categories and the default sitemap behavior, which is important because there is no output schema. It remains incomplete for a batch audit tool with four parameters and no annotations, since it omits input-selection details, limits, and error or authentication behavior.

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 only 50%, and the description compensates partially by mentioning sitemap input, the default /sitemap.xml, and a list of URLs. It leaves sitemap_url unexplained and does not clarify the relationship between site, sitemap_url, urls, and max_pages, so an agent still lacks full parameter guidance.

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 that the tool audits every URL from a sitemap or list, returning page facts plus cross-page problems such as duplicate titles and noindex pages. It distinguishes itself from the sibling page_facts by emphasizing batch auditing and cross-page checks, though it does not explicitly frame the sibling as an alternative.

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?

It implies the tool is for auditing sitemap or URL-list sites and notes that it is free, which helps with selection. However, it gives no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or direct comparison to page_facts, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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