sample_pages

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well: it explains the sampling methodology (random + oldest + newest, specific sample ranges), output structure (detailed analysis, aggregated issues, cross-cutting findings, ranked issues), and the strategic purpose (finding template-level issues). It doesn't mention performance aspects like rate limits or auth needs, but provides substantial behavioral context.

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?

Well-structured with purpose first, usage guidance second, then concrete examples and returns. The bullet points efficiently illustrate the sampling approach and output format. Slightly verbose in the example section, but every sentence adds value for understanding scope and results.

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 tool with 4 parameters, 100% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides excellent context: clear purpose, usage timing, behavioral methodology, and output format. It compensates well for the lack of output schema by detailing what the tool returns. Minor gap: doesn't mention error handling or performance constraints.

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 parameters. The description doesn't add specific parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it mentions 'route types' generally but doesn't elaborate on the routeTypes parameter). Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 'intelligently sample[s] and analyze[s] pages based on an audit plan', specifying both the action (sample and analyze) and resource (pages). It distinguishes from siblings like analyze_page (single page) or crawl_site (full crawl) by emphasizing representative sampling across route types.

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?

Explicitly states 'Use this AFTER plan_audit to analyze representative pages from each route type', providing clear when-to-use guidance. It also distinguishes from alternatives by explaining the sampling approach versus crawling all pages, helping the agent choose between this and tools like crawl_site or check_urls.

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