get_site_audit_pages_spec_errors

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It successfully describes key behavioral traits: the tool is part of a drill-down workflow, returns specific fields (url, urlCrc/imageCrc, count), explains how the CRC is used for deeper analysis, describes the three mode options, and importantly discloses that it 'Does not consume API credits' - a crucial operational detail not evident from the schema alone.

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 and appropriately sized. It starts with the core purpose, explains the return values, describes the mode parameter, provides a workflow example, and ends with the API credit disclosure. Every sentence serves a clear purpose, though it could be slightly more concise by combining some explanatory elements.

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 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description does an excellent job of providing context. It explains the return format, the workflow relationship with sibling tools, the meaning of key parameters, and important operational details (no API credit consumption). The main gap is not explicitly describing pagination behavior despite having limit/offset parameters, though the schema covers these.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 7 parameters thoroughly. The description adds some value by explaining the 'mode' parameter options ('all', 'new', 'solved') and their meanings, but doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema descriptions. This meets the baseline of 3 when schema coverage is high.

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's purpose as 'Get list of elements (pages/images) with specific error' - a specific verb (get) and resource (elements with specific error). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_site_audit_elements_with_issues' by explaining this is the first drill-down step that provides CRCs for deeper analysis with that sibling tool.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives: 'Example flow: get pages with 'image_no_alt' error → get imageCrc → use with get_site_audit_elements_with_issues to see which pages use that image.' It also explains the relationship with the sibling tool and provides a concrete workflow example.

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