prioritize_audit_issues

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavior beyond that: the sort ordering, the fact that unmatched URLs are treated as unknown rather than zero, and the no-double-counting rule — all of which affect how an agent should interpret output.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core action before the caveats. Each sentence carries information, though the final caveat sentence is dense and reads as a list of edge-case rules.

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 explanation is unnecessary, and the description covers interpretive caveats well. However, with 0% parameter documentation and no usage context, an agent still lacks enough to invoke this confidently.

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% across three parameters (report_json, site_url, days), and the description never mentions them — it neither explains the expected JSON shape nor the meaning or default of days. Only a loose contextual hint about Search Console data and an audit plan is inferable.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: adding observed Search Console traffic to an audit action plan, plus how results are ordered (severity, then clicks/impressions). This clearly separates it from generic audit siblings like site_audit or get_project_audit, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus running an audit or fetching search analytics, and no prerequisites or sequence guidance. The exclusions ('does not estimate revenue or ranking gains') bound the tool's scope but do not tell an agent when to select it.

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