analyze_page

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It describes what the tool analyzes (SEO factors) but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it makes network requests, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what format the analysis results take. The mention of 'JavaScript rendering analysis' and 'basic load time measurement' hints at some behavior but lacks specifics.

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 well-structured with a clear introductory sentence followed by a bulleted list of analysis categories and a usage context sentence. Every element serves a purpose, though the bulleted list is somewhat lengthy (8 items) which slightly reduces conciseness.

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?

For a 4-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good purpose and usage context but lacks behavioral details (how it works, what it returns) and doesn't compensate for the missing output schema. The complexity of analyzing 8 SEO factors suggests more completeness would be helpful.

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 the schema already documents all 4 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain how 'waitForSelector' interacts with the analysis or why 'device' matters for SEO). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 analyzes a single web page for specific SEO factors, listing 8 distinct categories. It distinguishes from siblings like 'analyze_sitemap' (multiple pages) and 'crawl_site' (site-wide crawling) by focusing on detailed analysis of a single page.

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 this tool ('detailed analysis of specific pages like job detail pages, landing pages, or homepage'), which implicitly suggests it's not for bulk analysis or sitemap-level work. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools.

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