audit_url

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the payment gating and the two-call pattern, which is useful. However, it doesn't state whether calling without tx returns an error or the payment info, what the audit covers, if results are cached, or rate limits.

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?

Two clauses, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by the usage pattern. Zero waste, every word 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 payment-gated tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description covers the high-level flow but omits critical context like chain semantics, the response of the free call, and what an audit returns.

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 0% with 3 parameters, so the description should compensate. It provides some meaning for tx ('transaction hash once paid') and url implicitly ('public URL'), but doesn't explain chain (e.g., which blockchain or allowed values) or the format of tx.

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 SEO audit of one public URL'), with 'instant' indicating synchronous behavior. It's clear what the tool does, though no sibling differentiation is needed since siblings are unrelated (film/camera tools).

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?

Explicitly describes the two modes of use: call without tx for payment details, or with tx once paid. It names the condition selecting each path. Missing details on what the payment details look like or how chain matters, but the core when-to-use is clear.

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