Get Recommendations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return behavior (sorted by estimated impact, savings in ms and bytes), which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about permissions, caching, rate limits, or whether the analysis is live vs cached.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and followed by return behavior. Every sentence earns its place with no padding.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description usefully covers the return shape (prioritized, impact-sorted, ms and bytes). For a simple two-parameter read tool this is largely sufficient, though it could state prerequisites or that it is read-only.

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 100%, so both 'url' and 'strategy' are fully documented in the schema, including the enum and default. The description adds no format or constraint details beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'get prioritized performance improvement recommendations for a URL.' This distinguishes it from raw-metric siblings like get_performance_metrics, but it never names or contrasts an alternative, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 word 'recommendations' implies the use case (wanting prioritized fixes rather than raw data), but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or reference to siblings like analyze_url or compare_strategies. Usage must be inferred.

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