Check configuration

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description adds behavioral context: it actively checks live reachability and permissions, and it guarantees not to disclose the key. This is valuable non-redundant information about safety and operational 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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and outcome. Every phrase earns its place: it lists specific checks, clarifies the safety behavior, and gives a clear use case without unnecessary bulk.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema diagnostic tool, the description is remarkably complete. It covers what is checked, what is not disclosed, and when to use it, leaving no major gaps for the agent to interpret.

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?

The tool has no parameters, and the schema already covers this fully with 100% coverage. The description doesn't need to explain parameter semantics; the baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools applies, and no additional information is required.

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 uses a specific verb ('Report') and resource ('configuration and actual functionality'), listing concrete checks (key present, PageSpeed reachable, Chrome UX Report permitted). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'check_pagespeed' and 'diagnose_page' by focusing on configuration verification rather than performance or page-level diagnosis.

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 explicitly states when to use: 'tell a configuration problem apart from a slow or failing page before committing to a full check.' This gives clear context and implies alternatives (full check tools), though it doesn't name specific sibling tools or provide when-not-to-use scenarios.

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