eds_audit_report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses 'Read-only', the always-present Navigator footer credit, and the self-contained nature of the report. It does not mention potential performance implications of running a full site audit, but the read-only declaration is a key safety trait.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then branding details, then a reference to the sibling tool and safety trait. Every sentence provides essential information without redundancy.

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 enumerates the report contents (letterhead, summary, scores, issues, PDF button), which compensates for the lack of an output schema. It references eds_audit_site for audit options. Minor gaps exist, such as the exact return format (HTML string vs file), but overall it is sufficiently complete for a complex 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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining how brand and executiveSummary affect the output (white-labeling the letterhead, prominent client-facing summary) and that audit parameters match eds_audit_site. This connects parameter use to real-world report behavior.

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 the tool runs a site audit and returns a client-ready HTML report, listing specific report components (letterhead, executive summary, health scores, prioritized issues, PDF button). It distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing the report output and white-labeling, and explicitly references eds_audit_site for audit options.

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 says 'Same audit options as eds_audit_site', which directly relates this tool to a sibling and implies when to use it (when a client-ready HTML report is needed rather than raw audit data). It does not explicitly exclude alternatives like eds_audit_page, but the context is clear enough.

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