audit_website

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It mentions 'deterministic' and 'instant', which are useful, but it doesn't explicitly state whether the tool is read-only or if it stores data. For an audit tool, the lack of side-effect disclosure is a minor gap; a 3 reflects partial disclosure without 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 a single, focused sentence that front-loads the primary action and lists key details (pillars, scoring, cost, speed). Every clause adds value without waste, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 simplicity (one param, no output schema), the description captures the essential return value ('0-100 score with specific findings') and key constraints. It doesn't explain the pillar scoring methodology or provide an example, but the core context is sufficient for an agent to select and use the tool 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?

The only parameter (url) has a schema description covering 100% of its semantics. The tool description adds 'any website' context but doesn't enhance the parameter's meaning beyond the schema. This aligns with the baseline 3 for high schema coverage.

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's function: 'Run a deterministic 5-pillar audit on any website' with a specific verb and resource. It also lists the pillars (Performance, SEO, Mobile, Security, AEO) and the return value (0-100 score). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'compare_websites' or 'ai_visibility_check' by focusing on a single-site audit.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool ('on any website') and highlights its accessibility ('Free, no API key, instant'). While it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools, the scope ('any website' vs. compare/dashboard) is implied. No exclusions or alternatives are stated.

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