audit_page

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

No annotations exist, so the description fully bears the burden. It discloses everything the tool does, including optional pagespeed integration, and notes that PDF generation requires a follow-up call. No destructive actions or contradictions.

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 succinct (about 6 sentences), front-loaded with the main purpose, and includes only essential information. No extraneous words or repetition.

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 the tool's complexity (many checks) and no output schema, the description thoroughly enumerates all output items (title, meta, issues, score, etc.) and provides next-step instructions. It is complete for an AI agent to use correctly.

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% with all three parameters described. The description adds extra context: url accepts 'https:// optional', pagespeed defaults to false, strategy defaults to mobile. It explains the interplay between pagespeed and strategy 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 clearly states the tool performs a 'Full on-page SEO audit of a URL' and lists specific elements (title, meta description, canonical, etc.), distinguishing it from siblings like check_robots or check_sitemap.

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 explicitly states it is 'Free, no API key', advises when to set pagespeed=true, and instructs to ask the user for a PDF report then call export_audit_pdf with specific parameters. This provides excellent guidance on when and how to use the tool.

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