audit_findability

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It details what the audit checks (head essentials, Open Graph, Twitter, JSON-LD, canonical agreement), which is useful, but it does not describe the return format, whether it is read-only, or any side effects. The agent cannot predict output structure or potential errors.

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 front-loaded sentence that states the primary purpose first, then lists specific audit dimensions. Every word adds value with no redundant phrases or unnecessary detail.

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?

The tool audits multiple complex aspects but has no output schema and only one parameter. The description enumerates the audit scope but omits any explanation of the output format, scoring, or return structure. For a tool with this complexity and no structured return definition, additional detail on the result is needed.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It identifies the sole parameter as a 'page HTML string', which clarifies the expected content type and purpose. However, it does not specify whether the string must be a full document or fragment, nor any formatting constraints.

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 states a specific action (audit) on a specific resource (page HTML string) and enumerates exact audit dimensions (head essentials, Open Graph, Twitter, JSON-LD validity, canonical-og:url agreement). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like generate_head or audit_surface.

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 implies use when you have an HTML string and need to assess findability, but it provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives like audit_surface or audit_delivery. The context for choosing this tool over siblings is absent.

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