audit_live_site

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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, so the safety bar is low. The description adds real behavioral context: this is a composite operation that performs a crawl and can optionally spawn a local Lighthouse CLI process, which is a heavyweight side effect worth knowing. It stops short of noting runtime, rate limits, or crawl cost.

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?

Front-loaded with the one-sentence purpose, followed by a compact Args block. Every sentence carries information; the only minor inefficiency is the plain-text 'Args:' formatting, which is tolerable but not the most structured presentation.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not required. For a moderate-complexity composite audit tool, the description covers what it does, what inputs mean, and the notable Lighthouse side effect. Remaining gaps are environmental details (runtime, crawl limits) rather than anything blocking correct invocation.

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%, so the description must carry the load, and it does reasonably well — 'Full site/page URL' hints at URL format, crawl_pages is explained by its purpose (duplicate/missing-tag issues), and include_lighthouse explicitly notes it runs a local Lighthouse CLI audit. Defaults (5, false) are not restated but the meaning of each parameter is conveyed.

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 ('Run a live SEO audit') and immediately names the key differentiator — no Search Console access required — plus the sub-analyses it bundles (page analysis, robots.txt, sitemap, PSI, same-origin crawl). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings like site_audit, crawl_site_seo, or get_seo_audit_report, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 phrase 'without requiring Search Console access' implies the usage condition (use when GSC is unavailable), but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives such as run_lighthouse_audit or crawl_site_seo. Usage is only implied.

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