page_explorer

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full burden. It describes the output (list of pages with technical criteria and metrics) but does not disclose behavioral traits like read-only nature, rate limits, or whether it triggers any side effects. The tool appears to be a safe query, but the description lacks explicit reassurance.

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 sentence of approximately 25 words, front-loading key information (criteria, sorting, included metrics). Every word contributes meaning, with no redundancy or filler. It is 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 absence of parameters and output schema, the description adequately explains the tool's output. However, it leaves open questions: what exactly constitutes 'any audit check'? Is there pagination or date filtering? The lack of specificity on criteria limits completeness. The sibling tools suggest more complex scenarios, but the description does not address them.

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?

There are no parameters defined in the input schema (0 parameters), so the description is the sole source of meaning. Baseline is 4 per guidelines. The description adds value by explaining the output semantics, but since there are no parameters, it cannot add parameter-specific information.

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 that the tool returns crawled pages matching technical criteria (status code, missing canonical, missing H1, any audit check), sorted by health, with indexability, performance score, and error/warning counts. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_page_detail (single page) and get_top_pages (likely different sort), but does not explicitly contrast with similar list tools.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not specify context, prerequisites, or exclusions. Sibling tools exist that could overlap (e.g., get_top_pages, list_keywords_for_page), making the lack of usage direction a significant gap.

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