page_health_score

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It transparently discloses the scoring breakdown, error handling via try/except for missing credentials or data, renormalization over available components, and the fallback score of 0. This gives the agent a clear picture of behavior beyond a simple 'compute' call.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then uses a clear bullet list for the scoring breakdown. Every sentence adds value; there is no redundancy or filler. The length is justified by the complexity of the calculation.

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 output schema exists, so return values need not be described. The description covers calculation logic, error scenarios, and parameter roles. It does not explicitly state necessary permissions or setup for GSC/GA4/CrUX, but the error handling implies missing credentials are gracefully handled. Sufficient for a computational tool.

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 coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It explains property_id overrides GA4_PROPERTY_ID and hostname/country scope GA4 queries, but url and site remain under-explained (only 'required'). For a 5-parameter tool, coverage is partial but adds meaningful context for three parameters.

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 starts with a clear action verb 'Compute' and specifies the resource: a 0-100 health score for a single page. It explicitly lists the four data sources (GSC, GA4, CrUX, schema), immediately distinguishing it from sibling tools like crux_page_vitals or ga4_page_performance that provide only component data.

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?

The description explains what the tool does but offers no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives among the many sibling tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or typical use cases that would help an agent choose this tool over others like batch_url_inspection or page_analysis.

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