audit_speed

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the URL is fetched server-side and lists return fields, but fails to disclose whether the tool is read-only, destructive, or has any side effects, rate limits, or authentication requirements.

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 brief and uses simple formatting with backticks for code. It front-loads the purpose and provides essential input/output info without unnecessary words.

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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately lists return fields (html_bytes, render-blocking scripts, etc.). It covers the two input modes and their behavior. A minor gap: it doesn't specify if both parameters can be omitted or if exactly one is required.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining that 'url' is fetched server-side and 'html' is a raw string. This adds basic meaning beyond the schema, but lacks details on valid formats, constraints, or whether both can be provided simultaneously.

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 it audits static load-speed signals from HTML, using a verb ('Audit') and a specific resource ('load-speed signals'). It differentiates from siblings like audit_mobile or check_links by focusing on speed, but does not explicitly contrast with them.

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 that you can pass a live URL (fetched server-side) or a raw HTML string, giving clear context on input options. However, it does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like audit_mobile or score_page, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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