audit_site

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses that the operation is keyless (no auth), concurrency-limited (rate control), driven by sitemap discovery including sitemap-index resolution, and that PageSpeed is deliberately NOT run. It also describes the default response shape (compact, worst-first) and the cost tradeoff of detail=true.

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 core verb and scope, and every sentence carries information an agent needs (pipeline, defaults, exclusions, alternatives). It is a single dense paragraph with long clauses, which is slightly heavy but not padded.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe returns, and it does: site-level aggregates, min/max/average score, pages with errors, site-wide gaps, issue rollup, and the per-page table. Combined with the default/detail distinction, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this 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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real value beyond the schema for detail by explaining the payload-size rationale for keeping it false, though it says nothing about the 'max' parameter (default 50) beyond the schema's own text.

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 opens with a precise verb+resource+scope: 'Site-wide on-page SEO audit' and then spells out the exact pipeline (sitemap discovery, per-page audit, site-level aggregates). It explicitly contrasts itself with audit_page, pagespeed, and export_site_pdf, so an agent can distinguish it from every relevant sibling.

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 names alternatives and the conditions that select them: 'Use audit_page or pagespeed for deep per-page performance, or export_site_pdf for a formatted report,' and it states when to set detail=true versus leaving it off. Both the routing decision and the parameter tradeoff are explicit.

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